The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3743 of 2023 Simpy Kumari, aged about 33 years, Daughter of Dhruv Ray, Resident of Village Diliya, Dilia, Bhojpur, P.O. Diliya, P.S. Chouri, Dist. Bhojpur (Bihar) Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Khnti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, Dist. Khunti 4. Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Khunti, … … Respondents P.O. & P.S. Khunti, Dist. Khunti CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State 04/7th February 2024 --- ---
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate : Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “i) For quashing of the proceeding dated 25.11.2022 of the District Compassionate Committee, Khunti with respect to rejection of compassionate appointment of the petitioner and as communicated vide letter no. 446 dated 06.12.2022 of D.C.L.R., Khunti and as communicated vide letter no. 1653 dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure-7) of the respondent no. 4. ii) For direction upon the respondent no. 4 to forthwith appoint the petitioner in place of her brother Gautam Kumar in the service of the respondent authority on compassionate grounds on appropriate post as per her qualification. And/Or For issuance of any other appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had moved this Court earlier in W.P. (S) No. 4809 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2022 seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of her brother, namely, Gautam Kumar. The learned counsel submits that the foundational background of the case has also been narrated in the order passed 2 in W.P. (S) No. 4809 of 2021 and ultimately the writ Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment if the petitioner fulfils all the criteria. The learned counsel submits that thereafter the District Compassionate Committee has taken a decision and the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected solely on the ground that on the date of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was already married. The learned counsel submits that a reference has also been made to clause-4 of Circular dated 01.12.2015. He submits that the petitioner had filed affidavit before the authority as has been annexed in the writ petition that she was dependent on her father and her husband was unemployed. He submits that the impugned order has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that she was married on the date of death of her father. He submits that such decision is not only contrary to the circular dated 01.12.2015 but is also contrary to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kalyani Kumari Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand in W.P. (S) No. 2818 of 2017 decided on 20.11.2017 wherein it has also been observed that under clause 4 of the 2015 scheme, a married daughter has been included in the definition of dependent of the deceased employee. The learned counsel submits that the reason for refusal of compassionate appointment is contrary to their own circular and therefore the impugned action and order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 4. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also considered Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India and has observed that any discrimination on the ground of sex is prohibited under Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has also submitted that married son is not ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground and therefore married daughter also cannot be disentitled for compassionate appointment if she was dependent on her father. He submits that the Circular has been wrongly interpreted by the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while opposing the prayer has submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. The learned counsel has submitted that it has been specifically stated in paragraph 23 of the counter-affidavit that since the 3 petitioner is married, therefore, she is not dependant on deceased father and as per clause 4 of the Circular of 2015, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner expired while in service on 24.12.2018 and the petitioner got married on 28.04.2017. 7. The petitioner had moved this Court earlier for consideration of her case by the respondents for compassionate appointment in W.P. (S) No. 4809 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2022 directing the respondents to pass a reasoned order and the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the said order. 8. The Circular dated 01.12.2015 has been brought on record by the respondents. Clause 4 of the said circular gives the list of persons who can be said to be dependent. Clause iv of the Circular dated 01.12.2015 is quoted as under: - “(4) आ्शित परिवाि से ्ቄा ता्र्ग है ? सरकारी सेवक के नि्ቖनिखित सद्ቧ सीधे आनित मािे जायेंगे :- (1) प्ቌी/पनत:- यथा खथथनत। (ii) पु्ቔ/ नवधवा पु्ቔवधू। (iii) अनववानित/नवधवा / तिाकशुदा/परर्ቓ्ሹा पु्ቔी एवं नववानित पु्ቔी जो सरकारी सेवक की मृ्ቓु के समय उसपर पूर्णतया आनित रिी िो। (iv) द्ቈक पु्ቔ/द्ቈक अनववानित पु्ቔी (निन्दु एडाप्शि ए्ቄ मेंटेिे्በ ए्ሴ 1956 के ्ቚावधाि के अिुसार ) अनववानित सरकारी सेवक के मामिे में :- (i) माता/नपता (ii) अनववानित भाई / अनववानित बिि” 9. Clause 4 (iii) of the said Circular clearly provides that unmarried/widow/divorced/abandoned daughter and married daughter who at the time of death of her father is dependent on her father is entitled for compassionate appointment. 10. This Court is of the considered view that clause 4 of the aforesaid Circular clearly indicates that the compassionate appointment can be granted 4 even to married daughter if she is dependent on her father at the time of death of the father. 11. In the present case, the only ground for rejection of the claim of compassionate appointment to the petitioner is that she was married prior to the death of her father. The materials on record show that the petitioner had filed an affidavit before the authority and had asserted that at the time of death of her father she was dependent on her father and her husband was unemployed. 12. This Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment merely on the ground that she was a married daughter cannot be sustained even when seen in the light of the Circular issued by the respondents. In the counter-affidavit also, the respondents have asserted that the sole reason for rejection of claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is that on the date of death of the father the petitioner she was married. 13. This Court has also gone through the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Kalyani Kumari Mishra (supra) where the claim for compassionate appointment was declined on the ground that the married daughter was not covered under the definition of dependent in Memo dated 05.10.1991 which was the earlier circular governing compassionate appointment. This Court had considered the constitutional provision which clearly prohibits any discrimination on the ground of sex under Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it has been held that once a married son is not ineligible for compassionate appointment, attaching such a disability to a daughter on such a ground is illegal. This Court had also considered that under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, if the son and daughter both have been put under a duty to take care of their parents at the old age, they cannot be extended unequal treatment on death of their parents. Paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 2818 of 2017 is quoted as under: - "5. The plea taken by the Committee, for rejecting the claim of the petitioner that the married daughter does not fall in the category of “dependant”, is de hors the constitutional provisions engrafted under Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any discrimination on the ground of sex is prohibited under Article 15 and Article 16 provides that no citizen shall on the grounds of sex, religion, race, ineligible, or caste, descent, place of birth or residence be 5 discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under the State. Once it is found that a married son is not ineligible for compassionate appointment, attaching a disability to a daughter on the ground of her marriage for compassionate appointment is apparently illegal. Various High Courts have held that denial of compassionate appointment to a married daughter is illegal. One of the notable judgments has been rendered in "Krishnaveni v. Superintending Engineer, Kadamparai Electricity Generation Block, Coimbatore District” (2013) 8 MLJ 684. In the said case referring to the provisions under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Court has held that if son and daughter both have been put under a duty to take care of their parents at the old age, on death of their parents they cannot be extended unequal treatment.” 14. In view of the aforesaid interpretation to clause 4 of the 2015 Circular read with the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kalyani Kumari Mishra (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment to the petitioner cannot be justified in law and therefore the same is hereby quashed and set-aside. No other reason has been assigned in the impugned order to deny compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 is directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner after due verification within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the writ records. 16. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid terms. 17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)