Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that a widowed daughter would be entitled to compassionate appointment. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Punita Bhatt alias Punita Dhawan v. BSNL, New Delhi. 

What was the Background of Punita Bhatt alias Punita Dhawan v. BSNL, New Delhi Case?  

• The petitioner is a widowed daughter and her father while working on the post of TOA (TL) in the office of General Manager (Telecom) died in harness leaving behind his wife, four daughters including the petitioner and a son. 
• The petitioner moved an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. 
• The petitioner has urged that her husband had died and after the death of her husband she had been staying with her father along with her minor son. 
• Further, she has urged that if she is given an appointment, she will take care of the heirs of her deceased father to the best of her ability. 
• The Assistant General Manager (Telecom) however intimated her that as widowed daughter is not listed in the eligibility criteria of guidelines circulated, no action on her application for compassionate appointment can be taken. 
• The CAT, when faced with the matter returned the finding that as per the guideline's widowed daughter is not enumerated in the list of eligible persons and the Tribunal cannot enter into the shoes of the Executive in framing the guidelines. 
• The Tribunal dismissed the application. 
• Finally, a writ petition was filed before the High Court on this matter.  
• The issue to be determined by the Court in the present petition was “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?” 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court held that the guidelines for Compassionate Appointment issued by the Government of India, Ministry Personnel Public Grievance and Pension states that the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment is applicable to a ‘Dependent Family Member.’ 
• The Court analyzing several judgments held that the common string running through all of these judgments is that purposive and expansive interpretation has been given to the term ‘family member’. 
• The High Courts have included even married daughters within the meaning of family of dependent. 
• The Court held that any distinction between married and unmarried daughter with regard to compassionate appointment would be discriminatory and hit by Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  
• Thus, the Court held that ‘daughter’ here would include even unmarried daughter. 
• The Court further answered the question if widowed daughter fell within the ambit of the definition of daughter. 
• It was observed that even after marriage and also after her widowhood the daughter continues her status as such even at the time of death of her father. 
• Therefore, the Court held that a widowed daughter would be covered in the definition of daughter. 
• Also, the Court added that if such widowed daughter was not dependent upon her father, then she would not be entitled to compassionate appointment under the guidelines.

What is Compassionate Appointment and the Guidelines Governing the Same? 

• The basis of Compassionate Appointment: 
  • The basis and rationale of these appointments is with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing destitution.  
  • The purpose of these policies is therefore, to give immediate succor to the family.  
  • It is to be noted that such a right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection.  
  • Compassionate appointments are, therefore, provided to bail out the family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis.  
  • This shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment 
• Guidelines Governing Compassionate Appointment: 
  • The Guidelines for Compassionate Appointment have been issued by the Government of India and these state that the scheme for compassionate appointment is applicable to a ‘Dependent Family Member’. 
  • It provides that ‘Dependent Family Member’ would mean: 
    • Spouse, or 
    • Son (including adopted son) 
    • Daughter (including adopter daughter) 
    • Brother or sister in case of an unmarried government servant.  
  • The pre-requisites for appointment are that the applicant should be a family member and should be dependent upon the deceased employee. 
  • Once these conditions are satisfied the economic or financial condition of the family including the dependent is required to be assessed.

What are the Case Laws Highlighting the Status of Daughter? 

• Sunita v. Union of India (1996): 
  • The Supreme Court in this case succinctly summarized the status of daughter as follows: 
    • ‘A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is a daughter throughout his life’. 
• Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of UP and Another (2015): 
  • The Court in this case was faced with the issue as to the eligibility of “married daughter” for compassionate appointment under the “Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974. 
  • The Court held in this case that exclusion of married daughter from the ambit of expression “family” in Rule 2 (c) is illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution.   
• Uddham Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bench Ltd and Others v. Anjula Singh and Others (2019): 
  • The question posed before the Larger Bench of Uttarakhand High Court was whether non-inclusion of a “married daughter” in the definition of “family” is discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) 
  • The Court held that non-inclusion of married daughter within the ambit of family is discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the COI.