# Punita Bhatt @ Punita Dhawan v. B.S.N.L. New Delhi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 609
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-22
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7862 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/punita-bhatt-punita-dhawan-v-b-s-n-l-new-delhi-ors-51121
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Constitution of India,1950
- Articles 14, 15, 16 - Uttar Pradesh
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government Servant (Dying in Harness)
Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(c) - Non- inclusion of
a "married daughter" in the definition of a
"family", Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1974,
and in the note below the regulation 104
of the 1975 Regulations, thereby denying
her the opportunity of being considered
for
compassionate
appointment,
even
though,
she
was
dependent
on
the
government servant at the time of his
death, is discriminatory and is in violation
of Article 14, 15 and 16 in Part III of the
Constitution of India and as such read
down the said definition of "family" in
Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1974, and in the
note below the regulation 104 of the 1975
Regulations, to save it from being held
unconstitutional. (Para 27)

High Courts have given purposive and
expansive interpretation to the meaning
of the term 'family member' and included
even
married
daughters
within
the
meaning of family of dependent. If a
married son is eligible for compassionate
appointment if he was dependent upon his
father at the time of his death unless he
had his own means of livelihood, then,
there is no reason as to why a married
daughter who is similarly placed, under
the aforesaid scheme. Any distinction in
this
regard
would
be
without
any
reasonable basis and without any link to
the
object
sought
to
be
achieved,
therefore, it would be discriminatory and
hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para
29, 31)

A scheme dated 09.10.1998 has been adopted
by BSNL, in order to bring uniformity and
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
transparency in the matter of compassionate
appointment and a weightage system has been
introduced vide Corporate Office Order dated
27.06.2007. (Para 30)

The word 'daughter' used in the scheme is not
preceded by the word 'unmarried' just as the
word 'son' used in the scheme is not preceded
by the word 'unmarried'. The absence of such
prefix gives a reasonable basis to conclude that
this definition does not exclude a 'married
daughter', especially as the definition is an
inclusive one, therefore, it has to be given an
expansive meaning keeping in mind the object
sought to be achieved. Although the word
'unmarried daughter' has been used in the
proforma documents annexed with O.M. dated
27.06.2007 by which weightage point system
was introduced but O.M. cannot supplant the
substantive provision contained in the scheme
dated 09.10.1998 as the weightage point
system merely provides a procedure and is not
the substantive provision. Even otherwise, the
word
unmarried
daughter
used
in
the
documents annexed with the aforesaid O.M.
would not be sustainable in view of the
decisions referred. Any action/clauses of the
policy which deprives a widowed daughter
from
a
right
of
consideration
for
compassionate appointment if she was
dependent upon her fat

## Text

11 All. Punita Bhatt @ Punita Dhawan Vs. B.S.N.L. New Delhi & Ors.
609

21. In the circumstances, this writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. A
mandamus is issued to respondent Nos.1,
2, 3 and 4 to ensure amongst themselves
immediate sanction and payment of
family pension to the first petitioner,
including
arrears,
General
Provident
Fund, Gratuity, Dues on account of Leave
Encashment, Group Insurance and any
other
death-cum-retirement
benefit,
admissible under the Rules. A mandamus
is further issued to each of respondent
Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 to ensure amongst
themselves consideration and decision of
the
second
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment
in
accordance with rules within a period of
eight weeks of the receipt of a copy of
this order.

22. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the Additional Chief
Secretary,
Ministry
of
Education,
Government of U.P., Lucknow through
Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lucknow and the
District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr,
the Principal, Government Inter College,
Kaulsena, District Bulandshahr through
Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Bulandshahr by the
Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 609
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ A No. 7862 of 2023

Punita Bhatt @ Punita Dhawan
 ...Petitioner
Versus
B.S.N.L. New Delhi & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, Bhavini Upadhyay,
Sandhya Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Pratul Kumar Srivastava, Gyanendra Singh
Sikarwar

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Constitution of India,1950
- Articles 14, 15, 16 - Uttar Pradesh
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government Servant (Dying in Harness)
Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(c) - Non- inclusion of
a "married daughter" in the definition of a
"family", Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1974,
and in the note below the regulation 104
of the 1975 Regulations, thereby denying
her the opportunity of being considered
for
compassionate
appointment,
even
though,
she
was
dependent
on
the
government servant at the time of his
death, is discriminatory and is in violation
of Article 14, 15 and 16 in Part III of the
Constitution of India and as such read
down the said definition of "family" in
Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1974, and in the
note below the regulation 104 of the 1975
Regulations, to save it from being held
unconstitutional. (Para 27)

High Courts have given purposive and
expansive interpretation to the meaning
of the term 'family member' and included
even
married
daughters
within
the
meaning of family of dependent. If a
married son is eligible for compassionate
appointment if he was dependent upon his
father at the time of his death unless he
had his own means of livelihood, then,
there is no reason as to why a married
daughter who is similarly placed, under
the aforesaid scheme. Any distinction in
this
regard
would
be
without
any
reasonable basis and without any link to
the
object
sought
to
be
achieved,
therefore, it would be discriminatory and
hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para
29, 31)

A scheme dated 09.10.1998 has been adopted
by BSNL, in order to bring uniformity and
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
transparency in the matter of compassionate
appointment and a weightage system has been
introduced vide Corporate Office Order dated
27.06.2007. (Para 30)

The word 'daughter' used in the scheme is not
preceded by the word 'unmarried' just as the
word 'son' used in the scheme is not preceded
by the word 'unmarried'. The absence of such
prefix gives a reasonable basis to conclude that
this definition does not exclude a 'married
daughter', especially as the definition is an
inclusive one, therefore, it has to be given an
expansive meaning keeping in mind the object
sought to be achieved. Although the word
'unmarried daughter' has been used in the
proforma documents annexed with O.M. dated
27.06.2007 by which weightage point system
was introduced but O.M. cannot supplant the
substantive provision contained in the scheme
dated 09.10.1998 as the weightage point
system merely provides a procedure and is not
the substantive provision. Even otherwise, the
word
unmarried
daughter
used
in
the
documents annexed with the aforesaid O.M.
would not be sustainable in view of the
decisions referred. Any action/clauses of the
policy which deprives a widowed daughter
from
a
right
of
consideration
for
compassionate appointment if she was
dependent upon her father, the deceased
employee would run contrary to Article
14,
15,
16
read
with
39A
of
the
Constitution of India. (Para 31)

Therefore, it is held that the words 'daughter
(including adopted daughter)' occurring in NoteI of the Guidelines dated 09.10.1998 includes a
married daughter, the only caveat is that such
married daughter should be dependent upon
her father/mother on the date of his/her death.
(Para 32)

B. The question of dependency is one of
fact which is to be determined by the
authorities. If widowed daughter was not
dependent upon her father then she would
not
be
entitled
to
compassionate
appointment
under
the
guidelines.
Consequently, a 'widowed daughter' would be
covered in the definition of 'daughter' contained
in Note-I of the Guidelines dated 09.10.1998 if
she was dependent upon her deceased father or
mother on the date of his/her death. (Para 35)

A 'widowed daughter' stands on a better
footing than a married daughter as, prima
facie with the loss of her husband, she also
loses her source of livelihood unless of course in
the facts of a given case it is found that she is
herself employed or has other means of
sustenance which are adequate to sustain her in
which case she may not have been dependent
upon her father, but, unless this is proved, it
would be reasonable to draw an inference that
she was dependent upon her father unless of
course there is evidence to the contrary. (Para
33)

Even
after
marriage
as
also
after
her
widowhood, she continues to be his daughter
and her status as such continues even at the
time of death of her father. Her widowhood
occurred prior to the death of her father,
therefore, she was for all legal and practical
purposes daughter of late Om Prakash Bhakta
although a widowed daughter, on the date of
his death. (Para 34)

C. Words and Phrases - "dependent" - a
spouse/son/unmarried
or
widowed
daughter/adopted
son/adopted
unmarried
daughter legally adopted by the deceased
government servant during his/her lifetime and
who were wholly dependent on the deceased
government servant at the time of his/her
death. The said definition was amended w.e.f.
28.10.2021,
wherein
it
included
married
daughter in the said definition but with certain
conditions. The Rajasthan High Court after
examining
various
judgments
passed
by
different High Court held that the use of word
"unmarried" and Rule 2(c) after of the Rules,
1996, deprived a married daughter from right of
consideration for compassionate appointment,
violates the equality clause and cannot be
countenanced. (Para 28)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma, AIR 2020
SC 3717 (Para 7)
11 All. Punita Bhatt @ Punita Dhawan Vs. B.S.N.L. New Delhi & Ors.
611
2. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Smt.
Urmila Devi, (2011) SCC OnLine All 152 (Para 7)

3. Sunita Vs U.O.I., (1996) 2 SCC 380 (Para 15)

4. Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
(2015) SCC OnLine All 6776 (Para 17)

5. Smt. Neha Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
Special Appeal Defective No. 863 of 2015,
decided on 23.12.2015) (Para 18)

6. Meenakshi Dubey Vs Madhya Pradesh Poorv
Chhetra Vidut Vitran Company Ltd., (2020) SCC
OnLine MP 383 (Para 20)

7. St. of West Bengal & ors. Vs Purnima Das &
ors., 2018 Lav I.C. 1522 (Para 21)

8. Uddham Singh Nagar District Cooperative
Bench Ltd. & ors. Vs Anjula Singh & ors., AIR
2019 UTR 69 (Para 23)

9. R. Jayammo Vs Karnataka Electricity Board &
anr., LR 1992 KAR 3416 (Para 24)

10. R Govindmmal Vs Principal Secretary, Social
Welfare
and
Nutritious
Meal
Program
Department, (2015) 3 LW 756 (Para 25)

11.
Sou.
Swara
Sachin
Kulkarni
Vs
Superintending Engineer Pune Irrigation Project
Circle & ors., 2013 SCC Online BOM 1549 (Para
26)

12. Devarshi Chakroverty Vs St. of Tripura &
ors., 2020 IGLT 198 (Para 27)

13. Manjula Vs St. of Karn., (2005) 104 FLR 271
(Para 27)

14. Priyanka Shrimali Vs St. of Raj., 2022 SCC
Online RAJ 1479 (Para 28)

Present petition challenges the judgment
and order dated 13.01.2023, passed by
the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as
'the
Tribunal'),
whereby
Original
Application No. 332/00/123/2017 filed by
the petitioner claiming compassionate
appointment on the basis of being widow
daughter has been dismissed.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

(1) Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi,
learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Pratul Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel
for the respondents.

(2) By means of this petition, the
petitioner has challenged the judgment and
order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow
Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal'), whereby Original Application
No. 332/00/123/2017 filed by the petitioner
claiming compassionate appointment on
the basis of being widow daughter has been
dismissed. In addition, the petitioner is also
challenging
the
direction/instructions
issued by the Assistant General Manager
(Recruitment),
Bharat
Sanchar
Nigam
Limited, Telecom (East), U.P. Circle,
Lucknow (respondent No.2) to the effect
that widow daughter of the deceased
employee cannot claim compassionate
appointment.

(3) Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner is a widowed daughter. Her
father, namely, Om Prakash Bhakta, while
working on the post of T.O.A. (T.L.) in the
office of General Manager (Telecom), died
in harness on 12.11.2011, leaving behind
wife (Smt. Saraswati Devi), four daughters
including the petitioner and a son.

(4) On 01.06.2016, the petitioner
moved an application seeking appointment
on compassionate ground. Along with the
application,
the
petitioner
had
also
submitted notary affidavits of her mother,
brother and married sisters to the effect that
if the petitioner is given appointment on
compassionate ground, they will have no
objection rather they have given their
consent to give appointment to the
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner. According to the petitioner, she
has also given a notary affidavit to the
effect that she was married with Late
Manish Dhawan who died on 27.07.2009
and after death of her husband, she was
living with her father along with her minor
son and further if she is given appointment
on a suitable post, she will look after the
heirs of her deceased father as per the best
of her capability and further that she is
Graduate and also has a Library Science
Certificate.

(5) Apparently, vide letter dated
13.10.2016, the Assistant General Manager
(HR),
Office
of
General
Manger
(Telecom), Allahabad intimated to the
petitioner that as widowed daughter is not
listed in the eligibility criteria of the
guidelines circulated by its Circle Office,
therefore, no action on her application for
compassionate appointment is required to
be taken.

(6) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner
preferred an Original Application No.
332/00/123/2017 before the Tribunal. The
Tribunal, after appreciating the claim of the
petitioner
as
also
appraising
the
guidelines/schemes issued by the Bharat
Sanchar
Nigam
Limited
for
compassionate appointment as well as
judgment of this Court passed in Special
Appeal No. 1026 of 2003 : U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi,
has returned a finding that as per the
guidelines, widowed daughter is not
enumerated in the list of eligible persons
and the Tribunal cannot enter into the
shoes of the Executive in framing of rules
and guidelines. In this backdrop, the
Tribunal has dismissed the original
application vide judgment and order
dated 13.01.2023, which has led to filing
of the present writ petition.

(7) The submission of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner was two fold;
firstly, as a widowed daughter she did not
lose the status of being a 'daughter' of her
father/parent and after death of her husband
she was dependent upon her father for
subsistence, as such, she would come under
the definition of family. In this regard,
learned Counsel has placed reliance upon
the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in
the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh
Sharma : AIR 2020 SC 3717 and Uttar
Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. vs.
Smt. Urmila Devi : (2011) SCC OnLine
All 152. Secondly, petitioner's case was
never placed before the Circle High Power
Committee as mandated by guidelines of
the respondents.

(8) Per contra, learned Counsel for the
respondents argued that the impugned order
passed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"BSNL") is based on Note '1' of
Memorandum dated 09.10.1998, by virtue
of which, the meaning of 'Dependent
Family Member' as per the Scheme for
Compassionate Appointment under The
Central Government (hereinafter referred to
as "the Scheme") issued by Department of
Personnel Training (DoPT) is mentioned,
wherein a 'widow daughter' of deceased
employee is not included as 'Dependent
Family
Member'
of
the
deceased
employee. It is also submitted that this
Court or the Tribunal cannot include a
widow within the definition of 'Dependent
Family Member' when the Policy decision
on the subject does not include her. Thus,
his submission was that learned Tribunal
has passed a reasoned order which does not
call for any interference.

(9) Having regard to the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel for the
11 All. Punita Bhatt @ Punita Dhawan Vs. B.S.N.L. New Delhi & Ors.
613
parties and going through the record
available before this Court in the instant
writ petition, what this Court finds is that
the bone of contention between the parties
is as to whether a "widow daughter" of a
deceased employee is a 'Dependent Family
Member' or not, so as to be eligible for
appointment on compassionate ground. The
point to be seen by this Court is as to
whether a "widow daughter" falls under the
definition of 'Dependent Family Members'
or not as per the Scheme of the
Compassionate Appointment.

(10) Evidently, the Guidelines for
Compassionate Appointment issued by the
Government
of
India,
Ministry
of
Personnel Public Grievance and Pension
(DoPT) vide Office Memorandum dated
09.10.1998 states that the Scheme for
Compassionate Appointment is applicable
to a 'Dependent Family Member. Point
No.2 of Note-1 of the Scheme For
Compassionate Appointment, says that a
'Dependent Family Member' means :-

"(a) Spouse, or

(b) Son (including adopted son),
or

(c) Daughter (including adopted
daughter), or

(d) Brother or the sister in the
case of an unmarried government servant."

(11) Apparently, the respondents-BSNL
relying on the aforesaid Note-1 i.e. the
meaning of 'Dependent Family Member' has
denied compassionate appointment to the
petitioner on the ground that "widow
daughter" is not mentioned at point No.(c),
which merely contains the word "daughter
(including adopted daughter)".

(12) The prerequisites to be satisfied
for being entitled for consideration for such
appointment are that the applicant should
be a family member and should be
dependent upon the deceased employee.
After these conditions are satisfied the
economic or financial condition of the
family, including the dependent, assumes
significance, and is required to be assessed.

(13) In the facts of this case, it is not in
dispute that the petitioner is the daughter of
the deceased employee, however, she was
married and became a widow prior to the
death of her father, the deceased employee.
It is this fact which is coming in the way of
her
consideration
for
compassionate
appointment as, according to respondents a
widowed daughter is not included in the
guidelines dated 09.10.1998.

(14) As per the Office Memo dated
09.10.1998 of Department of Personnel and
Training, Government of India and the
scheme for compassionate appointment
appended thereto which has been adopted
and is applicable in the opposite partycorporation, the object of the scheme is to
grant
appointment
on
compassionate
ground to a dependent family member of an
employee dying-in-harness or who is
retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving
his family in penury and without any means
of livelihood, to relieve the family of an
employee from financial destitution and to
help it to get over the emergency.

(15) It is not in dispute that the scheme
is applicable in the opposite partycorporation
and
was
applicable
to
'dependent family member' of a deceased
employee. The bone of contention is as to
whether the petitioner who was the married
daughter and unfortunately became a
widow prior to the death of the deceased
government servant, is covered by the
scheme or not. As per Note-1 of the
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
scheme, the words 'dependent family
member' has been defined. As per clause
(c) thereof, definition of 'daughter' is an
inclusive one which includes 'adoptive
daughter'. The foremost question is as to
whether the petitioner was daughter of the
deceased employee on the date of his death
or not in terms of this definition. The fact
that she was born out of the wedlock of her
parents one of whom was the deceased
employee i.e. her father is not in dispute.
Even after her marriage, she continued to
be daughter of her father i.e. late Om
Prakash Bhakta and there cannot be any
dispute regarding her status as such. In the
case of Sunita vs. Union of India reported
in (1996) 2 SCC 380, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court succinctly summarized the status of a
daughter vis-a-vis other relatives in the
following words :-

'A son is a son until he gets a
wife. A daughter is a daughter throughout
his life'.

(16) The entitlement of a married
daughter
to
be
considered
for
compassionate
appointment
has
been
considered by this High Court as well as
Hon'ble the Supreme Court and, the
relevant rules pertaining to the Government
of U.P. which are quite similar to the
guidelines dated 09.10.1998, have been
interpreted so as to include a 'married
daughter' within the definition of 'daughter'
contained therein. Subsequently, these
Rules have even been amended in the light
of these pronouncements.

(17) We may in this regard refer to a
decision of a Division Bench of this Court
in Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State of U.P.
and Another : (2015) SCC OnLine All
6776, which has considered the eligibility
of "married daughters" for compassionate
appointment under the "Uttar Pradesh
Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974
(hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1974")".
The
learned
Division
Bench,
while
considering Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1974,
which relates to definition of 'family' and
sub-rule
2(c)(iii),
which
relates
to
"daughter" and inter-alia contained a term
"unmarried daughters", "married adopted
daughter",
"widow
daughter"
and
"widowed daughter-in-law" within its fold
but did not mention "married daughter",
went on to hold that the exclusion of
married daughters from the ambit of the
expression "family" in Rule 2(c) of the
Rules, 1974, is illegal and unconstitutional,
being violative of Article 14 and 15 of the
Constitution of India and accordingly, the
word 'unmarried' in sub-rule 2(c)(iii) of the
Rules, 1974 was struck down by the
learned Division Bench after recording
various precedents.

(18) The decision of the learned
Division Bench of this Court in Smt.
Vimla Srivastava (supra) was followed by
another Bench of this Court in Smt. Neha
Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and Another
(Special Appeal Defective No.863 of 2015,
decided on 23.12.2015). The special leave
petition filed against the said order has
been dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2019
passed in Special Leave to Petition (Civil)
No.22646 of 2016.

(19) Thus, it is seen from the aforesaid
judgment of this Court that although
"unmarried daughters", "married adopted
daughters", "widowed daughters", and
"widowed
daughter-in-law"
were
mentioned to mean a dependent of a
family, however, the learned Division
Bench of this Court giving an expansive
and inclusive interpretation of the meaning
11 All. Punita Bhatt @ Punita Dhawan Vs. B.S.N.L. New Delhi & Ors.
615
of
'family'
also
included
"married
daughter" within its fold as dependent.

(20) A Full Bench of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in the case of
Meenakshi Dubey vs. Madhya Pradesh
Poorv Chhetra Vidut Vitran Company
Ltd. : (2020) SCC OnLine MP 383, also
upheld the right of the "married daughter"
to claim appointment on compassionate
grounds. The Full Bench, after tracing the
development of history on the said
proposition of law, has held that Clause 2.2
of the State Policy, which deprives
'married
daughter'
of
the
deceased
employee from right to consideration to
claim
compassionate
appointment
is
violative of Article 14, 16 and 39 (a) of
Constitution of India. The Full Bench has
further held that a women citizen cannot be
excluded
for
any
appointment
on
compassionate appointment basis on the
grounds of sex alone and a daughter even
after marriage remains part of the family of
deceased employee and she could not be
treated as not belonging to her father's
family and criteria for compassionate
appointment should be dependency rather
than marriage.

(21) Similar question came up for
consideration before a Larger Bench of
High Court of Calcutta in State of West
Bengal and Others Vs. Purnima Das and
Others : 2018 Lav I.C. 1522, wherein the
relevant Clause 2(2) of the policy, which
was subject matter of examination, was:-

"2(2).
For
the
purpose
of
appointment on compassionate ground, a
dependent of a government employee shall
mean wife/ husband/ son/ unmarried
daughter of the employee who is/was solely
dependent on the government employee.

The substantial question to be
decided by the Larger Bench was whether
the classification created by Government
by depriving the married daughter from
right of consideration for compassionate
appointment is a valid classification.
Dipankar Dutta Justice speaking for the
Bench opined as under:-

"...We are inclined to hold that
the purpose of scheme for compassionate
appointment every such member of a family
of the government employee who is
dependent of the earning of such employee
for his or her survival must be considered
to belong to a up 'class'. Exclusion of any
member of a family on the ground that
he/she is not so dependent could be
justified, but certainly not on the grounds
of gender or marital status. If so permitted,
a married daughter who stand deprived of
the benefit that a married son would be
entitled under the scheme. A married son
and a married daughter may appear to
constitute different classes but when a
claim for compassionate appointment is
involved, they have to be treated equally
and at par if it is demonstrated that both
depended on the earning of their deceased
father/mother (government employee) for
their survival. It is, therefore, difficult for
us
to
sustain
the
classification
as
reasonable."

(22) Consequently, the Larger Bench
has held that the adjective 'unmarried'
before daughter, is stuck down as violative
of the Constitution. The judgment of
Purnima
Das
(supra)
etc.,
was
unsuccessfully challenged by the State of
West Bengal before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SLP (Civil) No.17638-17639 of
2018 which were also dismissed on
23.07.2019.
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(23) Similar question came up for
consideration before a Larger Bench of
High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of
Uddham
Singh
Nagar
District
Cooperative Bench Ltd. and Others Vs.
Anjula Singh and Others :AIR 2019 UTR
69, wherein the question posed before the
Larger Bench was to whether non-inclusion
of a "married daughter" in the definition of
"family", under Rule 2 (c) of the Rules,
1974, and in the note below the Regulation
104
of
the
1975
Regulations,
is
discriminatory, and is in violation of
Article 14, 15 and 16 in part-III of the
Constitution of India. The Larger Bench,
after
recording
various
precedents,
governing the field went on to hold that
non-inclusion of a "married daughter" in
the definition of a "family", Rule 2 (c) of
the Rules, 1974, and the note below of the
regulation 104 of the 1975 Regulations,
thereby denying her the opportunity of
being
considered
for
compassionate
appointment,
even
though,
she
was
dependent on the Government Servant at
the time of his death, is discriminatory and
is in violation of Article 14, 15 and 16 in
Part -III of the Constitution of India.

(24) It is noteworthy that similar view
has been taken by Hon'ble Karnataka High
Court in R Jayammo Vs. Karnataka
Electricity Board and Another : ILR
1992 KAR 3416. In the said case, it has
been held :-

"10.
This
discrimination
in
refusing compassionate appointment on the
only ground that the woman is married is
violative of constitutional guarantees. It is
out of keeping with the trend of times when
men and women compete on equal terms in
all areas. The electricity Board would do
well to revive its guidelines and remove
such anachronism."

(25) The Madras High Court in R
Govindmmal Vs. Principal Secretary,
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal
Program Department : (2015) 3 LW 756
opined thus :-

"Therefore, I am of the view that
G.O.M.S
No.560
dated
03.08.1977,
depriving compassionate appointment to
married daughters while married sons are
provided compassionate appointment, is
unconstitutional. In fact, the State can
make
law
providing
certain
benefits
exclusively for women and children as per
Article 15 (3) of the Constitution of India.
But the State cannot discriminate women in
the matter of compassionate appointment,
on the ground of marriage."

(26) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court
in Sou. Swara Sachin Kulkarni Vs.
Superintending
Engineer
Pune
Irrigation Project Circle and Others :
2013 SCC Online BOM 1549 opined that
the stand of the State that married daughter
will not be eligible or cannot be considered
for compassionate appointment violates the
mandate of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. No discrimination
can be made in public employment on
gender basis. If the object sought can be
achieved is assisting the family in financial
crisis by giving employment to one of the
dependents, then undisputedly in the case,
the daughter was dependent on the
deceased and his income till her marriage.
Thus, the Court did not find any rationale
for this classification and discrimination
being made in matters of compassionate
appointment and particularly when the
employment was sought under the State.

(27) To the same extent, the judgment
by High Court of Tripura in Devarshi
Chakroverty Vs. State of Tripura and
11 All. Punita Bhatt @ Punita Dhawan Vs. B.S.N.L. New Delhi & Ors.
617
Others : 2020 1GLT 198, wherein the
Court took note of the various judgments of
High Courts including the judgment of
Allahabad High Court in Vimla Srivastava
(supra) and judgment of Karnataka High
Court in Manjula Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2005) 104 FLR 271 and has
held that non-inclusion of a "married
daughter" in the definition of a "family",
Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1974, and in the
note below the regulation 104 of the 1975
Regulations, thereby denying her the
opportunity
of
being
considered
for
compassionate appointment, even though,
she was dependent on the government
servant at the time of his death, is
discriminatory and is in violation of Article
14, 15 and 16 in Part III of the Constitution
of India and as such read down the said
definition of "family" in Rule 2 (c) of the
Rules, 1974, and in the note below the
regulation 104 of the 1975 Regulations, to
save it from being held unconstitutional.

(28) Further, Full Bench of Rajasthan
High Court in the case of Priyanka
Shrimali vs. State of Rajasthan : 2022
SCC Online RAJ 1479 was tasked upon to
interpret
Rule
2(c)
of
Rajasthan
Compassionate
Appointment
of
Dependents
of
Deceased
Government
Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred
to as the "Rules, 1996") which describes
the meaning of "dependent" to be a
spouse/son/unmarried
or
widowed
daughter/adopted son/adopted unmarried
daughter legally adopted by the deceased
government servant during his/her lifetime
and who were wholly dependent on the
deceased government servant at the time of
his/her death. The said definition was
amended w.e.f. 28.10.2021, wherein it
included married daughter in the said
definition but with certain conditions. The
Rajasthan High Court after examining
various judgments passed by different High
Court
held
that
the
use
of
word
"unmarried" and Rule 2 (c) after of the
Rules, 1996, deprived a married daughter
from
right
of
consideration
for
compassionate appointment, violates the
equality
clause
and
cannot
be
countenanced.

(29) The common string running
through the aforesaid judgments of various
High Courts is that they have given
purposive and expansive interpretation to
the meaning of the term 'family member'.
The High Courts have risen to the occasion
to include even married daughters within
the meaning of family of dependent.

(30) Now, whether there is anything in
the
scheme
dated
09.10.1998
which
excludes a married or widowed daughter.
No doubt, after the said scheme dated
09.10.1998 had been adopted by BSNL, in
order to bring uniformity and transparency
in the matter of compassionate appointment
a weightage system has been introduced
vide
Corporate
Office
Order
dated
27.06.2007. In the documents annexed with
the said office order under the headings
such as 'items with positive points' etc. and
'checklist with reference to weightage point
system', no doubt, whenever there is
reference to daughter it is referred as
unmarried daughter, however, the said
Office Memo dated 27.06.2007 only lays
down the procedure to be followed while
considering compassionate appointment. It
does not lay down the eligibility for such
consideration. The eligibility, in fact, is laid
down in the Office Memo dated 09.10.1998
of the Government of India which has been
adopted and applied by BSNL as is also
mentioned
in
Office
Memo
dated
27.06.2007. Thus, the weightage point
system introduced vide Office Memo dated
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27.06.2007 by BSNL is only an action
consequential to the main guidelines which
are dated 09.10.1998 and is procedural in
nature. It is the main guidelines dated
09.10.1998 which contain the substantive
provision for entitlement to compassionate
appointment,
and
not
the
Office
Memorandum dated 27.06.2007, therefore,
the Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2007
of BSNL cannot be understood and given a
meaning contrary to or beyond the
substantive provisions as contained in the
O.M. dated 09.10.1998. We are to read and
understand the Office Memorandum dated
27.06.2007 in the light of guidelines dated
09.10.1998 and not vice versa.

(31) The word 'daughter' used in the
scheme is not preceded by the word
'unmarried' just as the word 'son' used in
the scheme is not preceded by the word
'unmarried'. The absence of such prefix
gives a reasonable basis to conclude that
this definition does not exclude a 'married
daughter', especially as the definition is an
inclusive one, therefore, it has to be given
an expansive meaning keeping in mind the
object sought to be achieved. Although the
word 'unmarried daughter' has been used in
the proforma documents annexed with
O.M. dated 27.06.2007 by which weightage
point system was introduced but we have
already stated that this O.M. cannot
supplant
the
substantive
provision
contained in the O.M. dated 09.10.1998 as
the weigtage point system merely provides
a procedure and is not the substantive
provision. Even otherwise, in view of what
has been discussed hereinabove, the word
unmarried daughter used in the documents
annexed with the aforesaid O.M. would not
be sustainable in view of the decisions
referred hereinabove. Moreover, if a
married son is eligible for compassionate
appointment if he was dependent upon his
father at the time of his death unless he had
his own means of livelihood, then, there is
no reason as to why a married daughter
who is similarly placed, that is, if she was
dependent upon her father, should not be
eligible for compassionate appointment
under
the
aforesaid
scheme.
Any
distinction in this regard would be without
any reasonable basis and without any link
to the object sought to be achieved,
therefore, it would be discriminatory and
hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.
Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India
prohibits discrimination by the State
against any citizen on grounds, inter alia, of
sex. Likewise, Section 16(2) prohibits such
discrimination on the grounds of sex in
respect of any employment or office under
the State. Thus, this Court finds that it is
clear
as
a
cloudless
sky
that
any
action/clauses of the policy which deprives
a widowed daughter from a right of
consideration
for
compassionate
appointment if she was dependent upon her
father, the deceased employee would run
contrary to Article 14, 15, 16 read with
39A of the Constitution of India.

(32) In the light of decisions discussed
hereinabove and the reasons given as
aforesaid, we have no hesitation to hold
that the words 'daughter (including adopted
daughter)' occurring in Note-I of the
Guidelines dated 09.10.1998 includes a
married daughter, the only caveat is that
such married daughter should be dependent
upon her father/mother on the date of
his/her death.

(33) Now the next question to be
considered is whether a 'widowed daughter'
would be included in the said definition.
We are of the opinion that a 'widowed
daughter' stands on a better footing than a
married daughter as, prima facie with the
11 All. Dr. Gyanvati Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
619
loss of her husband, she also loses her
source of livelihood unless of course in the
facts of a given case it is found that she is
herself employed or has other means of
sustenance which are adequate to sustain
her in which case she may not have been
dependent upon her father, but, unless this
is proved, it would be reasonable to draw
an inference that she was dependent upon
her father unless of course there is evidence
to the contrary.

(34) Even after marriage as also after
her widowhood, she continues to be his
daughter and her status as such continues
even at the time of death of her father. Her
widowhood occurred prior to the death of
her father, therefore, she was for all legal
and practical purposes daughter of late Om
Prakash Bhakta although a widowed
daughter, on the date of his death.

(35) Consequently, this Court holds
that a 'widowed daughter' would be covered
in the definition of 'daughter' contained in
Note-I of the Guidelines dated 09.10.1998
if she was dependent upon her deceased
father or mother on the date of his/her
death. The question of dependency is one
of fact which is to be determined by the
authorities. If such widowed daughter was
not dependent upon her father then she
would not be entitled to compassionate
appointment under the guidelines.

(36) For all the above said reasons, the
respondent-BSNL could not have declined
to consider the application of the petitioner
for compassionate appointment merely
because the petitioner was a widowed
daughter on the date of death of her father.

(37) We have also gone through the
judgment
of
Central
Administrative
Tribunal
dated
13.01.2023
which
is
impugned herein and in view of the
discussion already made, we find ourselves
unable to agree with the decision given by
it. In view of the reasons already given, the
said judgment is not sustainable. It is,
accordingly, quashed.

(38) The original application as also
this petition is allowed. The competent
authority is directed to consider the claim
of
the
petitioner
for
compassionate
appointment in accordance with weightage
point system prevalent and in doing so she
shall be assigned points accordingly and
her claim shall not be rejected on the
ground that she was married or widowed
daughter.
The
observations
made
hereinabove shall be adhered while taking a
decision in this regard. A decision in this
regard shall be taken within two months
from the date of communication of a copy
of this order.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 619
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ A No. 11061 of 2024

Dr. Gyanvati Dixit ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sudeep Kuma, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey,
Shreshth Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ashutosh Singh, Vijay Vikram

A.
Service
Law
-
Suspension
-
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
-
Section
16G(5)
-
The
court/tribunal