Married Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment Where Claim Arose Before 2021 Amendment: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner is the married daughter of a government servant who died in service on 20.01.2021 (paras 2, 6). Her application for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 was forwarded on 02.03.2021 (paras 2.1, 7). By a letter of 31.03.2022, the Additional Director held that under Rule 2 as amended in 2021 she could not be treated as a dependent, because the deceased had a son (paras 2.2, 6.1). Her representation and notice went unanswered (para 2.3). She relied on Priyanka Shrimali and said her brother lived in the USA (paras 3-3.2). The State replied that the 2021 amendment adding married daughters applied only prospectively, and that the widow and son were first-category dependents (paras 4, 4.1).

The Court noted that before the notification of 28.10.2021 a married daughter was not within the definition of ‘dependent’ in Rule 2(c) until the Larger Bench ruling in Priyanka Shrimali v. State of Rajasthan; it reproduced both versions of the rule and extracts of that ruling (paras 6.2-6.4). The father died on 20.01.2021, and her application was forwarded on 02.03.2021 (para 7). The amendment was prospective, as the respondents' own document stated, so her case did not fall under the amended definition (para 7.1). It was governed by the old definition, in which the Larger Bench had included the married daughter (para 8). Only the amended definition admits a married daughter if no son or unmarried, widowed or divorced daughter is available; the old definition has no such condition (paras 8-9). The son would rank first under the new rule, but the matter, the cause of action and most of the exercise belonged to the period before the amendment (para 9). Compassionate appointment is meant to give immediate financial relief to a family that has lost its sole breadwinner, and the petitioner was completely eligible (para 10).