The Supreme Court today set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgments, which held that the definition of family doesn't include a married daughter for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
This case arises from a reference by a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court on whether claims of married daughter for compassionate appointment can be denied while no such disability is attached to the married sons.
In this case, the petitioner, a married daughter, approached the Allahabad High Court for a license as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds.
The single Judge said it was bound by the consistent views of the Allahabad High Court, but since other High Courts have taken divergent views, it referred the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, however, upheld the Bombay High Court's view in Ranjana and overruled the contrary judgments of the Allahabad High Court.
The Supreme Court today set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgments, which held that the definition of family doesn't include a married daughter for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that it is in agreement with all the judgments of the Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court and Calcutta High Court, which said that marital status can't constitute a valid ground for denying the welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter.
It held that this exclusion violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Indian Constitution: "The object of allotment under the dependent quota is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased dealer facing financial hardship. The relevant considerations are dependency, financial need, residence, and the ability of the applicant to discharge the obligations attached to the dealership. Marital status bears no rational nexus to any of these considerations."
The judgment authored by Justice Aradhe states that the exclusion is based on the premise that a married daughter ceases to be a member of the family. Such an assumption, however, is not constitutionally permissible. The bench said that marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency.
Added to this, the Court remarked that such disability is not extended to married sons and therefore, this exclusion is founded upon gender-based stereotypes that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family.
This case arises from a reference by a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court on whether claims of married daughter for compassionate appointment can be denied while no such disability is attached to the married sons.
In this case, the petitioner, a married daughter, approached the Allahabad High Court for a license as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds. She challenged a 2019 Government Order No. 6 of the Uttar Pradesh government, which by necessary inclusion of unmarried, legally separated, and widowed daughters, excluded married daughters from the definition of 'family'.
To briefly state, after marriage, she continued to reside in the same village as her family, took care of four sisters, including one disabled sister. She ran a fair price shop with her mother. After her mother died, the petitioner applied for a license, which was denied to her.
The Single judge of the High Court considered the precedents before the Court. It considered the division bench's judgment in Vimal Srivastava vs State of U.P. and others(2015), wherein while interpreting a similar provision under The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 of the definition of "family" as contained for appointment of compassionate ground in a service matter, held that the exclusion of the married daughters from the definition of the family, is unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and thus the word "unmarried" used in the definition of family was struck down.
It also considered that the 2019 GO on the claim of a married daughter who challenged before a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Kusumlata vs State of U.P. and others(2021). It held that the logic of the Vimal judgment couldn't be applied. It held that the use of the word "unmarried daughter" in the definition of the family in the 2019 GO is not discriminatory. It also held that the 2019 GO can't be interpreted in the manner the Allahabad High Court interpreted the provisions of the Harness Rules. A similar view was taken by the division bench in Saida Begum vs State of U.P. and others(2023).
The Allahabad HC single bench also considered the divergent views taken by the other High Courts. For instance, the Bombay High Court in Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao vs State of Maharashtra and others(2014) held the exclusion of married daughters in the definition of "family" in the resolution issued by the State of Maharashtra under Licencing Order, 1979, violative of Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. A similar view has also been taken by the Gujarat High Court.
The single Judge said it was bound by the consistent views of the Allahabad High Court, but since other High Courts have taken divergent views, it referred the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, however, upheld the Bombay High Court's view in Ranjana and overruled the contrary judgments of the Allahabad High Court.
In the judgment pronounced today, the Supreme Court said: "For the foregoing reasons, on a purposive construction of Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, we hold that the expression “daughters” used in the aforesaid provision includes a married daughter who furnishes a dependency certificate along with No Objection Certificates from other adult family members of the deceased dealer and is a local resident and satisfies all other eligibility conditions prescribed in the G.O. "
The Court set aside the orders denying her the license and ordered that the competent authorities shall issue a valid allotment order within four weeks for the shop.
It also placed appreciation for Advocate Rukhmini Bobde,the amicus curiae in the matter..
Case Details: KULSUM NISHA Vs STATE OF U.P|CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7667 OF 2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 588
Click Here To Read Order
