Rejecting divorced daughter as dad’s nominee violation of fundamental right, rules MP high court

Bhopal/Jabalpur: In a significant ruling, the MP high court has said denying the status of a family member to a divorced daughter of a govt employee is a violation of the fundamental right to equality.

Quashing an order of the home guards director general that refused to accept a retired district commandant’s divorced daughter as his nominee for family pension, Justice Vishal Dhagat said, “When a married daughter can be a member of the family, how can a divorced daughter not be? It’s violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

The verdict, delivered on May 12, was made available this week.

The DG (home guards) had refused to accept petitioner Jyoti Shrivastava as her father Shankarlal Shrivastava’s nominee for family pension on the grounds that a divorced daughter is not a part of the family of the employee, according to MP Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976.

Jyoti had challenged the DG’s order dated Dec 16, 2021, rejecting the application of his father, who passed away in 2017, to nominate her for pension. The order stated that a divorced daughter is not dependent on the employee, according to pension rules.

After hearing the arguments of both sides, Justice Dhagat said: “On going through provisions of the pension rules, 1976, it is found that a divorced daughter is not included in the definition of family. However, married daughters are included in the definition of family under rule 44(5) of Pension Rules of 1976.”

This was violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, “as there is no difference between unmarried daughter, married daughter or divorced daughter”, the bench said, adding: “If a married daughter is included as a family member, there is no reason to exclude a divorced daughter from the definition of family.” A divorced daughter “is also required to be treated equally with daughters mentioned in Rule 44(5) of Rules of 1976”, the judge reiterated.

The HC directed that the petitioner’s case be reconsidered, and if it is found that she was dependent on the deceased govt servant, then her application for grant of family pension be allowed. An order in this regard should be passed by the home guards DG within 90 days, the bench added.