In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, reinforced the principle of gender equality by declaring that widowed daughters are entitled to compassionate appointments if dependent on their deceased parents. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Punita Bhatt alias Punita Dhawan, and ordered Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to reconsider her application within two months.
The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, underscores the inclusive definition of “family” and reaffirms the perpetual status of daughters, regardless of marital or widowhood status.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around the petitioner, Punita Bhatt, a widowed daughter of Om Prakash Bhakta, who was employed with BSNL as a Telecom Office Assistant. Bhakta passed away in 2011, leaving behind his wife, four daughters, and a son. Following his demise, Punita, who had lost her husband in 2009 and was living with her father along with her minor son, applied for compassionate appointment in 2016. She submitted affidavits from her family supporting her application.
However, BSNL rejected her claim, citing its compassionate appointment policy, which did not explicitly include “widowed daughters” within the definition of “dependent family members.” The rejection was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in January 2023, prompting Punita to approach the High Court.
Key Legal Issues
The High Court addressed two crucial legal questions:
1. Definition of Family Members: Whether the term “daughter” in the compassionate appointment guidelines includes widowed daughters.
2. Constitutional Principles: Whether the exclusion of widowed daughters violates Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and prohibit discrimination based on gender or marital status.
Court’s Observations
The Court delivered a strong message against discriminatory interpretations of compassionate appointment policies. Justice Om Prakash Shukla, writing for the Bench, highlighted the inherent equality of daughters, stating:
“A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is a daughter throughout her life.”
This observation formed the bedrock of the judgment, emphasizing the timeless bond and dependency between daughters and their parents.
1. Dependency as the Core Criterion:
The Court underscored that dependency, not marital status, should determine eligibility for compassionate appointments. A widowed daughter, often left without a source of livelihood, deserves equal consideration as other dependents.
2. Constitutional Protections:
Excluding widowed daughters was deemed unconstitutional, violating Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination based on gender). The Court invoked Article 39(a), which mandates the state to provide adequate means of livelihood for women.
3. Progressive Interpretation:
Drawing from rulings of the Supreme Court and High Courts across India, the Bench adopted an expansive interpretation of the term “family,” emphasizing that the absence of the term “unmarried” before “daughter” in BSNL’s guidelines supports inclusion.
Decision
The High Court quashed the CAT’s decision and directed BSNL to reconsider Punita’s application based on the 1998 Office Memorandum governing compassionate appointments. It clarified that:
– A widowed daughter is included in the definition of “daughter” if she was dependent on her deceased parent at the time of death.
– Dependency is a question of fact and must be assessed by the authorities. If dependency is proven, the widowed daughter cannot be excluded on technical grounds.
The Court instructed BSNL to finalize the petitioner’s application within two months, assigning her weightage points in accordance with the company’s guidelines.
Representation and Legal Precedents
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Advocates Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, Bhavini Upadhyay, and Sandhya Dubey argued that Punita remained dependent on her father even after her marriage and subsequent widowhood, making her eligible under compassionate appointment schemes.
– Respondent’s Counsel: Advocates Pratul Kumar Srivastava and Gyanendra Singh Sikarwar contended that BSNL’s guidelines, based on the 1998 DoPT memorandum, excluded widowed daughters.
