The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the right of a married daughter to be considered for compassionate appointment if she is the sole surviving family member of a deceased government employee. The court dismissed a petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order, which directed the State to grant compassionate appointment to Smt. Rinky Sharma, a married daughter of a deceased railway employee.
Background of the Case
The case arose when Rinky Sharma, the daughter of Late Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma, applied for a compassionate appointment following the demise of her father, who was a permanent employee of North Western Railway. After her request was rejected, she approached the CAT, which ruled in her favor. The Tribunal relied on a previous full bench judgment in Smt. Heena Sheikh v. State of Rajasthan ("Heena Sheikh Case"), which had established that a married daughter is eligible for compassionate appointment.
The Rajasthan High Court’s division bench, comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur, affirmed the CAT’s reliance on the Heena Sheikh Case and ruled that there was no legal or factual error in its decision.
State's Argument: The petitioners, including the Union of India and North Western Railway authorities, contended that Rinky Sharma was ineligible for compassionate appointment since she was married and her husband was employed. They argued that the CAT had overstepped by directing her appointment.
Respondent's Argument: Sharma's counsel maintained that being the sole surviving family member of the deceased employee, she was entitled to be considered for compassionate employment. They cited the Heena Sheikh Case as a precedent, which had already established that marital status does not disqualify a daughter from such consideration.
The High Court found no merit in the State’s argument and upheld the CAT’s decision. The key takeaways from the ruling include:
“The Tribunal relied upon the Full Bench decision in Smt. Heena Sheikh v. State of Rajasthan, which explicitly states that a married daughter is eligible for compassionate appointment. There is no legal or factual error in the impugned order.”
The court also noted that the rejection order issued by the authorities on 08.01.2020 was a non-speaking order, meaning it failed to provide reasons for the decision. Given that such orders have civil consequences, the court ruled that the rejection violated principles of natural justice.
“An order rejecting a request for compassionate appointment must provide valid reasoning, as it affects the rights of the applicant. A non-speaking order cannot be sustained.”
Thus, the court dismissed the petition filed by the State and upheld the Tribunal’s directive to reconsider Sharma’s application on merit, based on established guidelines and policies.
This ruling reinforces the legal position established in the Heena Sheikh Case and sets a crucial precedent regarding the eligibility of married daughters for compassionate employment. It ensures that marital status does not serve as a disqualification and upholds the principle of gender equality in employment-related matters.
Title: Union of India & Ors. v Smt. Rinky Sharma
