Consideration of widowed daughter’s application for compassionate appointment: HC to BSNL

The Allahabad Bench of the Lucknow High Court, in a key judgment on the issue of compassionate appointments, held that a woman, even after marriage or widowhood, will continue to be a “daughter”. Moreover, if she had been widowed before her father’s death, she would have been included in the definition of “daughter” for all legal and practical purposes, the court noted.

With this decision, the court satisfied the widow, who sought appointment to the position of her deceased father on compassionate grounds. The court directed the competent authority of BSNL to consider the application of the “widowed daughter” for compassionate appointment within two months.

A division bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla delivered the judgment on November 22, allowing a petition filed by Punita Bhatt (alias Punita Dhawan) seeking directions regarding her compassionate appointment.

The petitioner sought appointment in place of her deceased father on compassionate grounds. Her father formerly served as TOA (TL) in the Office of the General Manager (Telecom) and passed away on November 12, 2011.

She was informed by the Assistant General Manager (HR), Office of the General Manager (Telecom), that being a widowed daughter, she could not find a placement as per the selection criteria and accordingly, her application was rejected.

The applicant first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the guidelines/schemes issued by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for compassionate appointment and held that as per the eligibility criteria, the petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment. It also held that the Tribunal cannot exercise executive functions and make rules and guidelines. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected her application.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner approached the high court.

The applicant’s counsel argued that she met the definition of a family member because she was dependent on her father after her husband’s death. At the same time, as the lawyer said, the widow does not deprive her of her status as a daughter.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent argued that under the compassionate appointment scheme, the widow was not a “dependent family member” of the deceased employee. It was submitted that since the policy did not provide for inclusion of this kind, the Tribunal or the court could not interfere with it.

As to the question of whether “widowed daughter” could be included in the definition of “married daughter,” the court found that there was nothing to deny the inclusion of a widowed daughter in that definition. It was held that in the case of a widowed daughter, the petitioner would also have lost her source of livelihood and therefore it could be concluded that she was dependent on her father unless there was evidence to show that she had other sources of income.

Noting that a “widowed daughter” would fall within the definition of “daughter” contained in Note I of the October 9, 1998 Guidelines if she was the dependent of her deceased father or mother on the date of his/her death, the court granted the petition and ordered the competent authority to consider the applicant’s application for appointment to a position on compassionate grounds within two months.