Join our WhatsApp Group
Latest
Wednesday, October 14, 2026
Rajasthan High Court
Labour Law

Widowed Daughter-in-Law Is a ‘Dependent’ for Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan High Court Reads Her Into ‘Widowed Daughter’

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court held that a widowed daughter-in-law falls within ‘dependent’ under Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, read purposively as part of ‘widowed daughter’ (paras 20, 25). Following its Division Bench ruling in Sushila Devi, which the Supreme Court left undisturbed, it allowed a widow's special appeal, rejected the plea of delay and ordered her compassionate appointment within three months, with prospective benefits (paras 19, 29-30).

Widowed Daughter-in-Law Is a ‘Dependent’ for Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan High Court Reads Her Into ‘Widowed Daughter’

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Allowed
Smt. Durga Devi Mairda v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2024:RJ-JD:60-DB
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1119/2022
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
2 January 2024
Bench
Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Rajendra Prakash Soni
Relevant Acts & Sections
Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 — Rule 2(c) (as amended by the Amendment Rules, 2021)
Final Outcome

Special appeal allowed and the Single Judge's order of 28.09.2022 set aside. The respondents are directed to grant compassionate appointment to the appellant within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment; all benefits of the appointment operate prospectively (para 30).

Key holdings

  1. ‘Dependent’ in Rule 2(c) includes a widowed daughter-in-law, read as part of ‘widowed daughter’ (paras 20, 25).
  2. The question left open by the Division Bench in Smt. Pinki is answered; Sushila Devi, left undisturbed by the Supreme Court, is followed (paras 18-19, 30).
  3. The 2021 amendment adding ‘married daughter’ to the definition fortifies the inclusive reading (para 28).
  4. Debabrata Tiwari distinguished: a ten-year delay under circulars and schemes, not statutory Rules (paras 17, 21).
  5. A three-year delay, with the claim handled till 2014 and benefits settled till 2017, does not bar the claim (para 29).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The appellant's mother-in-law, a Class IV employee of the Public Health and Engineering Department, died in service on 07.02.2013; both her sons, including the appellant's husband, had died in 2006 and 2007 (paras 8-8.1). With the family's agreement, the appellant sought compassionate appointment, but the Department replied in 2013 and 2014 that a daughter-in-law was not a ‘dependent’ under Rule 2(c) (paras 8.2-8.5, 12). After representations, she filed a writ petition in January 2018 (paras 8.4, 8.6). The State's only defence was the definition (paras 8.7.1-8.7.2). A Single Judge dismissed it on 28.09.2022 for delay and want of a statutory provision (paras 1, 14). In appeal, the State relied on the Supreme Court's Debabrata Tiwari ruling on delay (paras 10-10.2).

Court's Findings

The Bench noted that its Division Bench in Sushila Devi had granted relief to a widowed daughter-in-law in the same circumstances, and that the Supreme Court dismissed the State's special leave petition on 09.10.2023 (paras 15, 19). In Smt. Pinki, a Single Bench had read ‘widowed daughter’ purposively to include a widowed daughter-in-law; the Division Bench upheld that result in 2012 but left the question open (paras 16, 18). Answering it, the Court held that ‘dependent’ in Rule 2(c), as amended in 2021, includes a widowed daughter-in-law where widowed and unmarried daughters are included, since she may have to take the role of a son or daughter when none survives (paras 20, 25). A hyper-technical reading was rejected: the word must be understood in its context and purpose (paras 23-23.1). Excluding her would be an incomplete construction, and the 2021 amendment adding ‘married daughter’ fortified this reading (paras 27-28). Debabrata Tiwari was distinguished: it involved a ten-year delay under circulars and schemes, whereas this claim rests on statutory Rules, the Department handled it till 2014, retiral benefits were settled till 2017 and the petition followed in 2018 (paras 17, 21, 29).

Legal Principle

Under Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan compassionate appointment Rules of 1996, as amended in 2021, ‘dependent’ is read purposively to include a widowed daughter-in-law within ‘widowed daughter’. A delay explained by the authorities' continued handling of the claim and of the family's benefits does not defeat a claim under the statutory Rules (paras 25, 29).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Sushila Devi D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 383/2023, Rajasthan High Court, decided on 04.07.2023
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 9, 15, 19, 30

    Division Bench judgment of this Court granting compassionate appointment to a widowed daughter-in-law whose husband and mother-in-law (the government servant) had died; same circumstances; followed.

  2. Sushila Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 521/2011, Rajasthan High Court, order dated 19.12.2022
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 9, 27

    Single Bench order granting compassionate appointment to a widowed daughter-in-law, upheld by the Division Bench; taken into consideration with it.

  3. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Sushila Devi Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21240/2023, Supreme Court, order dated 09.10.2023
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 15, 19, 26

    The Supreme Court declined to entertain the State's special leave petition against the Division Bench judgment in Sushila Devi and dismissed it.

View all precedents (8)
  1. Smt. Pinki v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9177/2010, Rajasthan High Court, decided on 12.09.2011
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 16, 18, 22, 24, 27

    Purposive interpretation of Rule 2(c): the term ‘widowed daughter’ may include a widowed daughter-in-law; held correct and its reasoning upheld.

  2. State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Smt. Pinki D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1915/2011, Rajasthan High Court, decided on 05.01.2012
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 18, 19, 25

    Upheld the Single Bench on the facts but left open whether a widowed daughter-in-law falls within ‘dependent’ in Rule 2(c); the question is answered in this judgment.

  3. The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 8842-8855 of 2022, decided on 03.03.2023
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 10, 10.1, 17, 21

    Relied on by the State on delay in compassionate appointment; distinguished as a ten-year delay under circulars and schemes, whereas the claim here arises under statutory Rules.

  4. Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. V. Somyashree Civil Appeal No. 5122/2021, decided on 13.09.2021
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 15

    Mentioned as one of the judgments considered by the Division Bench in Sushila Devi; not discussed further.

  5. Smt. Sapna v. University of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9686/2020, Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), decided on 04.12.2020
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 15

    Mentioned as one of the judgments considered by the Division Bench in Sushila Devi; not discussed further.

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: January 2, 2024 Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Rajendra Prakash Soni
PDF
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt