Uttarakhand High Court Overturns Order Denying Compassionate Appointment to Married Daughter
In a significant ruling, a single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari at the Uttarakhand High Court has set aside an order from the animal husbandry department that rejected a compassionate appointment request from Pithoragarh resident Bhavna Bhatt solely because she is a married daughter. The court's decision emphasizes the protection of constitutional rights against gender-based discrimination.
Background of the Case
The rejection order was issued on May 8, 2023, by the additional director of the animal husbandry department in the Kumaon Region. Bhavna Bhatt's father had passed away on May 4, 2016, prompting her to seek compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. However, the department cited her marital status as grounds for denial, arguing that married daughters were not included in the definition of family under the rules at the time of her father's death.
Legal Arguments Presented
Bhatt's counsel relied heavily on a 2017 full bench judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which had previously ruled that excluding married daughters from the definition of family under Rule 2(c) of the Dying in Harness Rules was discriminatory and violated Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution. These articles guarantee equality before the law, prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, and ensure equality of opportunity in public employment.
The counsel argued that the department's reasoning—claiming married daughters were only included in the family definition from September 4, 2019, after a formal amendment—was legally untenable. He emphasized that constitutional court judgments operate retrospectively unless expressly stated otherwise. Therefore, the benefit of the 2017 ruling should apply to Bhatt's case, regardless of the 2019 amendment.
State's Opposition and Court's Rejection
Opposing the plea, the state counsel contended that Bhatt's case must be considered under the rules in force at the time of her father's death in 2016, when married daughters were not explicitly included. However, the High Court found no merit in this argument. The court observed, "It is well settled that a constitutional court decision operates retrospectively, as it declares the law and does not enact it."
Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kanishka Sinha & Ors vs State of West Bengal & Ors, the court noted that while legislation is ordinarily prospective unless made retrospective, a court judgment is retrospective unless it specifically limits its operation to the future. This principle reinforced that the 2017 ruling should apply to all similar cases, including Bhatt's.
Court's Final Ruling and Remand
Quashing the 2023 order, the High Court on Tuesday remanded the matter back to the competent authority for reconsideration of Bhatt's claim for compassionate appointment. The court directed the authority to assess her application without discrimination based on marital status. However, it left open other relevant aspects for examination, such as whether Bhatt was dependent on her father at the time of his death, which could impact the final decision.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional values and ensuring that administrative actions do not perpetuate gender bias. It sets a precedent for future cases involving compassionate appointments and the rights of married daughters under Indian law.
