MS. SAVITA SAMVEDI AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1046 · Decided: 30-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MS. SAVITA SAMVEDI AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 30, 1996 
B 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, .LT.] 
S e1Vice Law : 
Railways-Residential accommodation allotted to railway se1' 
C vant-Regulaiisation of in favour of son/unmanied daughter of reti1ing 
employee-Position of manied daughter amongst eligibles-Employee exercis-
ing option in favour of manied dauglzte1~Railway authoiities rejecting claim 
relying on Railway Board circular dated 11.8.1992-Held Circular is violative 
of A1tic/e 14 of the Constitution in so far as it disciiminates against manied 
daughter-Circular to be read in favour of manied daughter as one of 
D eligibles. 
Constitution of India : 
Arlicle 14--Govenunent accon11nodation-Regula1isation of in favour 
E of son/daughter of retiring employee-Railway Board Circular dated 
11.8.1992-Held to be violative of Article 14 in so far as it disciiminates 
against manied daughta-Manied daughter placed at par with other eligibles. 
Appellant no. 2, a railway employee stationed at Delhi, prior to his 
retirement requested the railway authorities to permit his married 
F 
daughter, appellant no. 1, also a railway employee, to share the railway 
quarter allotted to him. He stated that both of his sons were working out 
of Delhi and he needed his daughter to look after him and his ailing wife. 
His request was acceded to and appellant no. 1 was allowed to share the 
railway quarter allotted to her father with the rider that she would not be 
entitled for regularisation of the accommodation after the retirement of 
G her father. Appellant no. 1, one day before retirement of her father, applied 
for regularisation of the quarter, but her claim was rejected on the ground 
that a married daughter was not eligible for regularisation of railway 
<1uarter. Representation of appellant no. 2 was also rejected. The appel-
lants after being unsuccessful before the Central Administrative Tribunal, 
H filed the present appeal. 
1046 
' 
...... 
SAVITASAMVEDI v. U.0.1. 
1047 
The respondents relied upon the Railway Board Circular dated A 
11.8.1992, stipulating that son/unmarried daughter of a retiring railway 
sen'ant would be eligible for allotment of rail\\'ay quarter, and concession 
to a married daughter would be extended only if the employee had no son 
or if the married daughter was the only person prepared to maintain the 
parents and the sons were not able to do so (e.g. minor sons). 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The railway Ministry's Circular dated 11.8.1992 suffers 
from twin vices of gender discrimination and discrimination inter se among 
women on account of marriage. The circular, in so far as it discriminates 
C 
against a married daughter is wholly unfair, gender biased and un-
reasonable, liable to be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution. 
The eligibility of a married daughter must be placed at par with an 
unmarried daughter (for she must have been one in that state), so as to 
claim the benefit of the earlier part of the Circular. (1082-A-C] 
1.2. The retiring official's expectations in old age for care and 
attention and its measure from one of his children cannot be faulted, or 
his hopes dampened, by limiting his choice. That would be unfair and 
unreasonable. If he has only one married daughter, who is a railway 
employee, and none of his other children are, then his choice is and has 
to be limited to that railway employee married daughter. He should be in 
an unfettered position to nominate that daughter for regularisation of 
railway accommodation. It is only in the case of more than one children 
in Railway sen'ice that he may have to exercise a choice and there is no 
reason why the choice be not left with the retiring official's judgment on 
D 
E 
the point and be not respected by the railway authorities irrespective of F 
the gender of the child. (1050-A-B) 
13. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the Circular was meant 
only to enlist the eligibles, who could claim regularisation but the important 
condition of one being a railway employee had to be satisfied before claim G 
could be laid. The first appellant, on that basis alone was eligible (subject 
to gender disqualification going), and the second a~pellant could exercise 
his choice/option in her favour to retain the accommodation, obligating the 
railway authorities to regularise the quarter in her favour, subject of course 
to the fulfilment of other conditions prescribed. T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.