Oral Judgment:
Y.G. Khobragade, J.
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
02. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the orders dated 10/05/2024 and 14/05/2024 issued by the respondent and seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring that, the Clause 4(I)(c) and (e) of the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Guidelines of 2019" for the sake of brevity), as unconstitutional for denial of appointment on compassionate ground because she is a married daughter of the deceased employee.
03. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that, Shri Vinayak Dnyandev Patil, the petitioner's father was working as a Stenographer (Grade-III) with the establishment of the District Court, Gadchiroli. However, the petitioner's father expired on 7th May, 2022 due to prolonged illness/cancer while in service. The petitioner is the eldest daughter of the deceased employee. The petitioner's mother, brother and sister are consented for the employment of the petitioner, hence, the petitioner is eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, by the impugned orders dated 10/05/2024 and 14/05/2024, the respondent denied appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground because of the petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased employee and she is disentitled for appointment on compassionate ground as per Clause 4(I)(c) and (e) of the Guidelines of 2019, which is voilative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
04. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further canvassed that, the petitioner, her mother, younger sister and brother were dependents upon her father, the deceased employee of the District Court Gadchiroli. The younger sister and the younger brother are pursuing their education. Further, the mother and siblings of the petitioner are ready and willing to furnish an undertaking stating that, they have no objection, if the petitioner is appointed on compassionate grounds. The petitioner is also ready and willing to furnish an undertaking that, she shall maintain her mother and siblings and shall provide monthly financial assistance to them till the marriage of her siblings and during the lifetime of her mother.
05. It is further canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that, the provisions of Clause 4(I)(c) and (e) of the Guidelines of 2019, which disqualify a married daughter from being considered for appointment on compassionate ground are discriminatory. Further, classification and distinction made between a married daughter and an unmarried daughter/son are unreasonable and are based solely on gender and marital status. Therefore, said provisions are violative of the principles of equality guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India.
06. To buttress these submissions, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner places relied on the following case laws as under:
i. Judgment dated 23/07/2026 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11623 of 2026 (Sayara Khatoon @ Shayara Khatoon & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.).
ii. Kulsum Nisha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1059.
iii. Asha Pandey vs. Coal India Ltd. & Others - 2016 SCC OnLine Chh 2408.
iv. Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Another vs. V. Somyashree - (2021) 12 SCC 20.
v. Bhuveneshwari V. Puranik vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Others - 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3397.
07. Per contra, Dr. (Mrs.) Renuka Sirpurkar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent canvassed that, Clause 3 of the Guidelines of 2019 provides the Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of an employee of the Department, who dies while in service. Clause 4(I)(c) of the Guidelines of 2019 provides that, a daughter (including an adopted daughter) who is unmarried, divorced, widowed or deserted by her husband is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. Clause 4(I)(e) further provides that, if a married daughter is the only offspring in the family of the deceased employee and the family is dependent solely upon such married daughter, she shall also be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased employee and she is neither divorcee, widowed nor deserted by her husband. Therefore, the petitioner is disentitled for appointment on the compassionate basis. It is further canvassed that, the deceased employee is survived by an unmarried daughter and son, therefore, the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of a dependent family member as contemplated under Clause 3 read with Clause 4(I)(c) and (e) of the Guidelines of 2019.
08. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent further canvassed that Clauses 3, 4 and 7 of the Guidelines of 2019 provides eligibility criteria for appointment on compassionate basis only those dependent family members, who were dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of his/her death. Since the petitioner is married daughter of the deceased employee and residing with her husband, hence, the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of a dependent family member of the deceased employee. Therefore, the petitioner has no vested right to seek appointment on compassionate grounds.
09. Dr. (Mrs.) Renuka Sirpurkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent further submits that, Clauses 4(I)(c) and (e) of the Guidelines of 2019 are framed keeping in view the dependency of the family members of the deceased employee, who died in harness. She further canvassed that, as per Clause 4(I)(e), a married daughter is included as a dependent family member, if she is the only offspring of the deceased employee and the family of the deceased employee is dependent solely upon the married daughter. In such circumstances, having regard to the criterion of dependency, appointment on compassionate grounds can be granted. Therefore, Clauses 4(I)(c) and (e) of the Guidelines of 2019 specifically provide for appointment on compassionate grounds to the eligible dependent family members, namely, the unmarried son, unmarried daughter, widow, and, in the circumstances contemplated under Clause 4(I)(e), a married daughter, who were dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of his/her death.
10. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joint Secretary, Political Department, State of Meghalaya, Main Secretariat, Shillong vs. High Court of Meghalaya, through its Registrar, Shillong - (2016) 11 SCC 245, wherein it has been held that, judicial review cannot be done merely on the comparison with other similar statutes in absence of any constitutional infirmity being established in the impugned statute itself.
11. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the parties, we have gone through the record. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased- Shri Vinayak Patil, who was serving in the establishment of the District Court, Gadchiroli as a Stenographer (Grade-III), died on 7th May, 2022 due to prolonged illness caused by cancer, leaving behind his wife, Smt. Vandana Patil, aged about 51 years; daughter, Ku. Sampada Patil, aged about 21 years; son, Master Tanmay Patil, aged about 15 years; and the present petitioner, Shubhada Patil (after marriage, Mrs. Shubhada Pranav Firke). The record reveals that on 23/03/2023, the petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed format to the respondent, through the learned Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds under the Guidelines of 2019. The petitioner also furnished the requisite particulars and documents, including educational qualification certificates, which disclose that she has completed B.Com. and MS-CIT and possesses English, Marathi and Hindi Typing qualifications, thereby making her educationally eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, by the impugned communication dated 10/05/2024, the respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds under Clause 4(I)(e) of the Guidelines of 2019 solely on the ground that the petitioner is not married offspring daughter of the deceased employee.
12, Needless to state, Clause 3 of the Guidelines of 2019 provides that, the Scheme shall apply to a dependent family member of an employee of the Department who dies while in service. Clause 4 of the Guidelines of 2019 provides as under:
“4. Definitions: For the purpose of the scheme:-
(I) "Dependent Family Member" means:-
(a) spouse; or
(b) son (including adopted son); or
(c) daughter (including adopted daughter), who is either unmarried or divorced or (c) widowed or deserted by husband; or
(d) brother, sister or parent in the case of unmarried employee, who was wholly dependent on the employee at the time of his/her death in harness.
(e) If the married daughter is the only offspring in the family of deceased employee and his/her family is dependent only on the married daughter, in such cases, the married daughter of the deceased employee, shall be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground.
(I-A) "Family" shall mean the relations listed in (I).”
13. On a careful consideration of the Guidelines of 2019, it prima facie appears that a daughter, including an adopted daughter, who is either unmarried, divorced, widowed or deserted by her husband, has been considered as a dependent family member of the deceased employee. As per Clause 4(I)(d), brother, sister or parent, in the case of an unmarried employee, has been considered as a dependent family member. Clause 4(I)(e) provides that if a married daughter is the only offspring in the family of the deceased employee and the family of the deceased employee is dependent solely upon the married daughter, then, in such cases, the married daughter of the deceased employee has also been considered as a dependent family member.
14. In Judgment dated 23/07/2026 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11623 of 2026 (Sayara Khatoon @ Shayara Khatoon & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), wherein, in paragraph No.5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“5. This held that any Court has repeatedly classification differentiating a daughter from a son is, per se, unconstitutional. On a perusal of the policy, we find that classification restricting eligibility only to a divorced or deserted daughter cannot be sustained in the eye of law. There cannot be a presumption in law that, after marriage, a daughter severs her ties with her parental family and resides with husband her matrimonial home. In the present case, specific statement has been made by the appellant that, although her divorce has not been formally recognized by law, she has been also living with her parental family. In fact, she has the support of her entire family including her mother and brother. a in In any event, adopting a hyper-technical approach cannot be a ground to deny consideration of her claim for compassionate appointment, the appeal is entitled for consideration on merits. As already stated, the objection of the brother also no longer survives.”
15. In Kulsum Nisha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1059, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the definition of "family" excluding a married daughter and, in paragraphs 24 to 27, observed as under:
“24. Now, we advert to the issue whether the words "unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters" are required to be struck down or can be read in a manner so as to include married daughters. The literal meaning of aforesaid words employed in Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order produces a result which is incompatible with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The principle of purposive construction is based on the understanding that the Court is supposed to attach that meaning to a provision which serves the purpose behind it, the basic approach being to ascertain is what the provision is designed to accomplish. When the language of an enactment is reasonably capable of more than one meaning, the Court is not merely permitted but is obliged to prefer that construction which promotes the provision and avoids a result that would be arbitrary or unjust. The Court should adopt purposive interpretation in cases where the literal interpretation may not serve the purpose or may lead to absurdity¹1.
25. Bearing in mind the object of the provision, that is to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent family of the deceased dealer and to ensure continuity of public distribution system, on purposive interpretation, the words "unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters" in Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, have to be read so as to include married daughters provided they fulfil other eligibility conditions laid down in G.O. for the following reasons: -
(i) The words "unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters" illustrate the specific categories of daughters who are expressly included. There is no express language of exclusion. The enumeration is a description of class of daughters who by reason of remaining in or returning to natal household, are most visibly placed in position of dependency. The absence of exclusionary language in respect of married daughters reflects an illustrative and not exhaustive character of enumeration;
(ii) The 2016 Order in Clause 2(p) itself defines one of the categories of family members as "Adult children who are fully dependent on the head of the family", without any qualification of marital status or gender.
(iii) The object of dependent quota is unambiguously welfare oriented, that is to provide for immediate financial relief to dependent family member of deceased dealer and to ensure continuity of public distribution system. Dependency and not the marital status is the governing criteria of the G.O.
(iv) The descriptive categories of daughters in Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order whether unmarried, legally separated or widowed share a common characteristic that is they remain or have returned to their natal family. They are united by functional criteria of dependency. A married daughter who has not departed from the natal household and is dependent upon it, shares the same functional characteristic.
(v) The submission that a married daughter necessarily fails to satisfy the local residence requirement and therefore cannot be a dependent, needs a factual inquiry to be made in every case. A blanket exclusion of all married daughters on such a speculative presumption is unjustified and is constitutionally untenable.
(vi) To read the words "unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters" in Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order would produce a result which is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 15(1) as the same would amount to exclusion of a married daughter on a gender-based stereotype which is constitutionally impermissible.
(vii) The exclusion of married daughter who is dependent upon the deceased dealer and resides with the family and is a capable of running the fair price shop would directly frustrate the purpose of the provision.
To sum up, the expression "daughter" in Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, has to be read to include a married daughter provided she establishes the dependency on the deceased dealer and satisfies all other eligibility conditions prescribed under the G.O. including the requirement of local residence.
26. For the foregoing reasons, on a purposive construction of Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, we hold that the expression "daughters" used in the aforesaid provision includes a married daughter who furnishes a dependency certificate along with No Objection Certificates from other adult family members of the deceased dealer and is a local resident and satisfies all other eligibility conditions prescribed in the G.O. The provision, so construed, would neither suffer from any invalidity nor any constitutional infirmity. It is saved by the very meaning it bears when understood in the light of its purpose.
27. We are in agreement with the view taken in Vimla Srivastava (supra) by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the decisions of the Bombay, Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts which have recognised the principle that marital status cannot constitute a valid ground for denying the benefit of a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter. To the extent the contrary view expressed in Saida Begum and Smt. Kusumlata (supra), does not lay down the correct law and stand overruled.”
16. In Asha Pandey vs. Coal India Ltd. & Others - 2016 SCC OnLine Chh 2408, wherein the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in paragraph 20, observed as under:
“29. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed and consequently clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI, which has been made applicable to clause 9.4.0(f) of NCWA-IX, regarding dependent employment only to the married daughter is held to be violative and discriminatory and the said clause to the extent of impliedly excluding married daughter from consideration for dependent employment is hereby declared void and inoperative. Resultantly, impugned order dated 15.10.2015 Annexure P-1 rejecting the petitioner's claim for dependent employment on the ground of her marriage is hereby quashed being unsustainable in law and it is directed that Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI read with clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-IX be read in the manner to include the married daughter also as one of the eligibles subject to fulfillment of other conditions. As a consequence, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for dependent employment afresh in accordance with law keeping in view that her father died way back on 08.02.2014 and her application for dependent employment was rejected on 15.10.2015, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs."
17. In Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Another vs. V. Somyashree - (2021) 12 SCC 20, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the definition of "dependent" of a deceased Government servant and held that a widowed daughter of the deceased employee is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.
18. In The State of Karnataka and Others vs. Smt. C.N. Apoorva Shree w/o Thammegowda and Another, W.P/ 5409 of 2021 decided on 22-03-2021, the Karnataka High Court held that the Government seems to have also been alive to this factual situation and to set right the anomaly or discrimination that was meted out to a married daughter has taken proactive step by bringing in amendment to Rule 3 which is said to be in pipeline for being implemented.
19. In Bhuveneshwari V. Puranik vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Others - 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3397, the Karnataka High Court held that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression "family" under Rule 2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the said Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
20. In Shimla d/o Late Satiram Rajbhar vs. Western Coalfields Limited - 2023 (4) Mh.L.J. 39, it is held that the exclusion of a married daughter/sister from being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds is unreasonable, suffers from gender discrimination and is, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
21. The learned Counsel appeaing for the Respondent tried to distingush cases of The State of Karnataka and Others vs. Smt. C.N. Apoorva, Bhuveneshwari V. Puranik, (cited supra) and contended that said ratio cannot apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case because police does not deny job on compassionate basis to the married daughter, which is within the discretion of the authrotiy, however, the Respondent fail explain the grounds as to disqualifying the married daughter from getting the employment of compassionate ground, if the married daughter of the deceased employee furnishes undertaking about maintaining her mother, brother and sister . So also, if the mother, brother and sister of married daughter furnishes No Objection for providing employment to the married daughter of the employee.
22. Needless to say that, in Kulsum Nisha (cited supra), the Hon’ble Superme Court held that, the marital status cannot constitute a valid ground for denying the benefit of a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter. Similarly, in Sayara Khatoon (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, no classification differentiating a daughter from a son is per se unconstitutional. Therefore, we find that classification restricting eligibility only to a divorced or deserted daughter cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. However, while framing the Guidelines of 2019, the respondent has made a distinction between a married daughter and an unmarried, divorced or deserted daughter of the deceased employee, which amounts to discrimination and is violative of the principles enshrined in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
23. It is submitted that, Article 14 guarantees to every citizen equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Article 15 expressly prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex. Further, Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Therefore, we are of the considered view that Clauses 4(I)(c) and (e) of the Guidelines of 2019, insofar as they exclude a married daughter from the definition of a dependent family member except in the limited contingency contemplated under Clause 4(I)(e), are unconstitutional as being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are liable to be quashed and set aside.
24. In the light of the above discussion, the following order would subserve the ends of justice.
ORDER
i. The respondent is hereby directed to suitably amend the Guidelines of 2019 in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulsum Nisha (cited supra) as well as the order dated 23/07/2026 passed in Sayara Khatoon (cited supra).
ii. The impugned order dated 10/05/2024 issued by the respondent is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii. The respondent is further directed to consider the application dated 23/03/2023 submitted by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds to a suitable post, commensurate with her eligibility and qualifications, within a period of three months from today.
iv. The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking from her mother, brother and sister stating that they have no objection to the petitioner being appointed on compassionate grounds.
v. The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking to the respondent stating that she shall maintain her mother, brother and sister and provide appropriate monthly financial assistance to them out of her salary till the marriage of her siblings and during the lifetime of her mother.
vi. It is made clear that, if the respondent receives any complaint from the mother, brother or sister of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has failed to maintain them in terms of the undertaking furnished by her, it shall be open to the respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law, including initiation of proceedings for cancellation of the compassionate appointment, after following due process of law.
vii. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
