Supreme Court Allows Married Daughter's Claim for Compassionate Appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer. Exclusion of married daughter from definition of 'family' in G.O. No. 6 of 2019 held ultra vires the 2016 Order and unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

  • 115
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Kulsum Nisha, is the married daughter of Smt. Badrun Nisha, who was the dealer of a fair price shop in village Aariyawan, District Amethi, Uttar Pradesh. After the death of her mother on 04.03.2024, the appellant applied for compassionate appointment as a fair price shop dealer under the dependent quota. Her claim was rejected by the authorities on the ground that Paragraph IV, Sub-Paragraph 10 of G.O. No. 6 of 2019, issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, defines 'family' to exclude a 'married daughter'. The appellant challenged this rejection before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which dismissed her petition. Aggrieved, she appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the validity of the exclusionary clause. It noted that the 2016 Order, issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, does not prescribe any marital status eligibility for appointment. The power to identify dependents is delegated to the State Government, but the State cannot impose conditions that are ultra vires the parent Order or violate constitutional guarantees. The court held that the exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of 'family' is discriminatory under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, as it treats daughters differently based on marital status without any rational basis. The court emphasized that a married daughter remains a daughter and may be equally or more in need of compassionate appointment, especially when she is the sole earning member. The court read down the definition to include married daughters and directed the authorities to consider the appellant's application afresh. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Discrimination on Ground of Marital Status - Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India - Exclusion of married daughter from definition of 'family' for compassionate appointment is discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights - The court held that marital status cannot be a ground to deny a daughter the right to be considered as a dependent for compassionate appointment, as it perpetuates gender stereotypes and violates the right to equality (Paras 7-10).

B) Essential Commodities Act - Fair Price Shop Appointment - Ultra Vires - Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Control Order, 2016, Clause 7(2)(i) - G.O. No. 6 of 2019, Paragraph IV, Sub-Paragraph 10 - The definition of 'family' excluding married daughter is ultra vires the 2016 Order, which does not prescribe any marital status eligibility - The court held that the State Government cannot impose additional disqualifications beyond the parent Order (Paras 3, 7).

C) Compassionate Appointment - Welfare Scheme - Beneficial Interpretation - Married Daughter's Right - The court held that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased dealer - The exclusion of married daughter defeats the purpose of the scheme, especially when the daughter is the sole earning member and responsible for the family (Paras 4, 8-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of 'family' in Paragraph IV, Sub-Paragraph 10 of G.O. No. 6 of 2019, for the purpose of compassionate appointment as a fair price shop dealer, is valid and constitutional.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and directed the authorities to consider the appellant's application for compassionate appointment afresh, treating her as a dependent within the meaning of the G.O. by reading down the definition to include married daughters.

Law Points

  • married daughter cannot be excluded from dependent quota for compassionate appointment
  • definition of family must be read down to include married daughter
  • G.O. No. 6 of 2019 sub-clause 10 of Paragraph IV is ultra vires the 2016 Order
  • Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution prohibit discrimination based on marital status
  • compassionate appointment is a welfare measure
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 INSC 617

Civil Appeal No. 7667 of 2025

2026-01-01

Alok Aradhe

2026 INSC 617

Kulsum Nisha

State of U.P. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against High Court order rejecting claim for compassionate appointment as fair price shop dealer.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought appointment as fair price shop dealer on compassionate ground after death of her mother, the deceased dealer.

Filing Reason

Rejection of appellant's claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that she is a married daughter and excluded from definition of 'family' under G.O. No. 6 of 2019.

Previous Decisions

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dismissed the appellant's writ petition by order dated 05.03.2025.

Issues

Whether the exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of 'family' in Paragraph IV, Sub-Paragraph 10 of G.O. No. 6 of 2019 is ultra vires the 2016 Order? Whether such exclusion is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the exclusion of married daughter is discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that she is the sole earning member responsible for her family including a visually impaired sister. Respondent State argued that the G.O. is valid and the definition of family is a policy decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of 'family' for compassionate appointment is ultra vires the 2016 Order and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, as it discriminates on the ground of marital status without any rational basis. The definition must be read down to include married daughters.

Judgment Excerpts

The definition of 'family' in Sub-Paragraph 10 of Paragraph IV of G.O. No. 6 of 2019, which excludes a 'married daughter', is ultra vires the 2016 Order and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. A married daughter remains a daughter and cannot be excluded from the purview of compassionate appointment merely on the ground of her marital status.

Procedural History

The appellant's mother, Smt. Badrun Nisha, was allotted a fair price shop on 27.10.2012. She died on 04.03.2024. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment under the dependent quota. The application was rejected citing G.O. No. 6 of 2019. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which was dismissed on 05.03.2025. The appellant then filed the present civil appeal before the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Essential Commodities Act, 1955: Section 3
  • Constitution of India: Articles 14, 15
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Regularisation of Unauthorised Transfer and Resumption of Land Allotted to Charitable Trust Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that the State Government cannot regularise a transfer made without prior consent u...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Married Daughter's Claim for Compassionate Appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer. Exclusion of married daughter from definition of 'family' in G.O. No. 6 of 2019 held ultra vires the 2016 Order and unconstitutional under Articles...