http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: MS. SAVITA SAMVEDI AND ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/01/1996

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. VENKATASWAMI K. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (2) 380        JT 1996 (1)   680  1996 SCALE  (1)598

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Punchhi, J.      Special leave granted.      This appeal voices a cry for gender justice.      The two appellants before us are a married daughter and father. The  second appellant  was in  service of the Indian Railways. While  in service,  he was  allotted  quarter  No. 30/3, Railway  Colony, Kishan  Ganj, Delhi.  He was  due  to retire on  31.12.1993. It  is a different matter that he was permitted to  retain the  railway quarter  for  the  maximum permissible  period   of  eight   months   thereafter   upto 31.8.1994. Much prior to retirement, the second appellant on 18.3.1993 requested  the railway  authorities  concerned  in permitting his  married daughter,  the  first  appellant  to share the  accommodation allotted  to him  on the basis that she was  a railway  employee  at  Delhi  described  as  "Sr. S.O./T.A./D.K.Z.". He  pointed out  that  he  had  two  sons working out  of Delhi,  but neither  of them  was a  railway employee, whereas  his married  daughter  was  one,  and  he needed her  to look  after him  and  his  ailing  wife.  His request was  granted favorably  in as  much as  on 31.5.1993 permission was  granted to  the  first  appellant  to  share railway quarter  of her  father with  effect from  16.3.1993 with  the   rider  that   she  would  not  be  entitled  for regularization of  the railway  quarter after the retirement of the  second appellant.  All the  same, a day short of the retirement of the second appellant, the first appellant laid claim to  the regularization  of the quarter contending that her brothers  were not  in a  position  to  look  after  her parents, whereas  she was,  and would  in future  also  look after her  parents. The  prayer was declined on 31.1.1994 on the ground  that a  married daughter  was not  eligible  for regularization of  a railway  quarter. The  second appellant also  made   a  representation   to   the   Divisional   and Superintending Engineer (Estates, Northern Railways, quoting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

instances where  regularization of railway accommodation had been made  in favour  of married  daughters. The request was forwarded by  the Divisional  and Superintending Engineer to the General  Manager, Northern Railways on 4.7.1994 pointing out that  the first  appellant was in Railway Service w.e.f. 25.2.1973, sharing accommodation with her father with effect from 16.3.1993  and that  she was  not  drawing  House  Rent Allowance on  her part  with  effect  from  that  date.  Her request was  declined because of the Railway Circular on the subject. Both  the appellants  then took  the matter  to the Central Administrative  Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi but without any success. They have thus knocked the doors of this Court for appropriate relief.      The respondents  in defence rely upon the Railway Board Circular  dated   11.8.1992,  whereunder  regularization  is permitted on  terms. The  operative part  thereof  reads  as follows : <SLS> "Reference Railway  Ministry’s letters  No. E(G)  82 or 1-23 dated 27.12.1982 and E (G) 85 OR 1-9 dated 15.1.1990 OR 1-11 dated 15.3.91 and 1.7.91, conveying instructions that when a Railway servant  who is an allottee of Railway accommodation retires from service, his/her son, unmarried daughter, wife, husband or  father as  the case  may  be,  may  be  allotted Railway accommodation  on  out  of  turn  basis  subject  to fulfillment of prescribed condition.      The Ministry  of Railways  have reviewed the matter and in supersession  of the  instructions vide  their letter NO. E(G) 82  OR dated  27-12-82 have decided to extend the scope of this  concession to  the married  daughter of  a retiring official, in  case he does not have any son or in case where the married  daughter is that only person who is prepared to maintain the parent(s) and the sons are not in a position to do so  (e.g. minor  sons).  This  will  be  subject  to  the conditions already  prescribed which  are applicable  to the other eligible wards seeking such concessions.      The decision  communicated above  will also  be equally applicable in the case of death/medical unfitness." <SLE>      As is  obvious from  the plain reading of the Circular, the married  daughter of  a retiring official is eligible to obtain regularization if her retiring father has no son. She thus has  a foothold,  not  to  be  dubbed  as  an  outcaste outright. In  case he  has a  son, she  shall not  be  in  a position to  do so,  unless he  is unable  to  maintain  the parents, e.g.  like a  minor son, but then she should be the only person  who is  prepared to maintain her parents. It is thus  plain  that  a  married  daughter  is  not  altogether debarred from obtaining regularization of a railway quarter, but her right is dependent on contingencies. The authorities concerned as also the Central Administrative Tribunal seemed to have overlooked the important and predominant factor that a married  daughter would be entitled to regularization only if she  is a  railway employee  as otherwise,  she  by  mere relationship with  the retiring official, is not entitled to regularization. Logically  it would  lead to  the conclusion that the  presence of  a son  or sons,  able  or  unable  to maintain  the  parents,  would  again  have  to  be  railway employees before  they can  oust the  claim of  the  married daughter. We  are not for the moment holding that they would be capable  of doing  so just  because  of  being  males  in gender. Only on literal interpretation of the Circular, does such a result follow, undesirable though.      A common saying is worth pressing into service to blunt somewhat the Circular. It is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

<SLS> "A son  is a  son untill  he gets  a wife.  A daughter  is a daughter throughout her life." <SLE>      The retiring  official’s expectations  in old  age  for care and  attention and its measure from one of his children cannot he  faulted, or  his hopes  dampened, by limiting his choice. That  would be  unfair and  unreasonable. If  he was 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  regularization of railway accommodation. It is only in  the case  of more  than  one  children  in  Railway service that  he may have to exercise a choice and we see no reason  why  the  choice  be  not  left  with  the  retiring official’s judgment on the point and be not respected by the railways authorities  irrespective  of  the  gender  of  the child.  There   is  no  occasion  for  the  railways  to  be regulating or  bludgeoning the  choice in  favour of the son when existing  and able to maintain his parents. The railway Ministry’s Circular  in that regard appears thus to us to be wholly unfair,  gender biased and unreasonable, liable to be struck  down   under  Article   of  the   Constitution.  The eligibility of a married daughter must be placed at par with an unmarried  daughter (for  she must have been once in that state), so  as to  claim the  benefit of the earlier part of the  Circular,   referred  to   in  its   first   paragraph, abovequoted.      The Tribunal took the view that when the Circular dated 11.8.1992 had  itself not  specifically been impugned before it  and  ex-facie  the  conditions  contained  in  the  said Circular had  not been  satisfied in  the present  case,  no relief need  be given to the appellants. The Tribunal viewed that when there were two major sons of the second appellant, gainfully employed,  the fact  that they  were  not  railway employees,  not   residing  in  Delhi,  did  not  alter  the situation that the terms of the Circular dated 11.8.1992 had not been  satisfied, under  which alone  regularization  was permissible.  As   brought  about   before,   the   Tribunal overlooked this  aspect that  the Circular was meant only to enlist the  eligibles, who  could claim  regularization, but the important  condition of one being a railway employee had to be  satisfied before  claim could be laid. In the instant case, the first appellant, on that basis, alone was eligible (subject to  gender disqualification  going). So  the second appellant 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 fulfillment of other conditions prescribed. The error being  manifest  is  hereby  corrected,  holding  the  first appellant in  the facts  and circumstances  to be  the  sole eligible for regularization of the quarter.      It was  also pointed  out before  us that  the  Central Administrative  Tribunal,   Bombay  Bench   in  one  of  its decisions in  OA 314 of 1990 decided on 12.2.1992 (Ann. P-8) relying upon  its own  decision in  Ms. Ambika  R. Nair  and another vs. Union of India and others (T.A. No. 467 of 1986) in which  the earlier  Circular of  the railway  board dated 27.12.1982 had  been questioned,  held that  the same  to be unconstitutional per  se as  it suffered from the twin vices of gender  discrimination and  discrimination inter se among women on  account of marriage. We have also come to the same view that  the instant  case is of gender discrimination and therefore should  be and  is hereby  brought in  accord with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Article 14  of the Constitution. The Circular shall be taken to have  been read down the deemed to have been read in this manner from its initiation in favour of the married daughter as one  of the  eligibles, subject,  amongst others,  to the twin conditions that she is (i) a railway employee; and (ii) the retiring official has exercised the choice in her favour for regularization. It is so ordered.      For the  reasons stated  above, this  appeal is allowed and  direction   is  issued  to  the  respondents  to  grant regularization  of  the  quarter  in  favour  of  the  first appellant with  effect from  the date  of retirement  of the second  appellant  and  regulate/re-adjust  the  charges  on account of  house rent  accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.