Holding

The Railway Board circular is unconstitutional under Article 14 and must be read down to treat a married daughter as an eligible claimant for regularisation of railway accommodation.

Summary

The case involved a retiring railway employee (appellant No.2) who sought to have his married daughter, also a railway employee (appellant No.1), regularised in the railway quarter allotted to him. The Railway Board circular dated 11 August 1992 allowed regularisation only for a son or an unmarried daughter, permitting a married daughter only if the father had no son or the daughter was the sole caretaker. The father had two sons who were not railway employees and a married daughter who was, and the railway authorities rejected her claim based on the circular. The Central Administrative Tribunal also dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the circular discriminated on the basis of gender and marital status, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. It read down the circular to include a married daughter as an eligible claimant, provided she is a railway employee and the retiring official exercises his choice in her favour. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the daughter was ordered to be regularised in the quarter.

Issues considered

Whether the Railway Board circular dated 11 August 1992 violates Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating against married daughters.
Whether a married daughter of a retiring railway employee can be treated as an eligible person for regularisation of railway accommodation.
Whether the retiring official's discretion to nominate a married daughter despite the presence of sons is permissible under the circular and constitutional principles.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

gender discriminationArticle 14railway accommodationregularisationequalitymarried daughterconstitutional law

Judgment

A MS. SAVITA SAMVEDI AND ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

B
JANUARY 30, 1996

[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, .LT.]

Se1Vice 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]
...... D
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
E
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
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. The error being manifest is
hereby corrected. The first appellant, in the facts and circumstances would H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A be the sole eligible person for regularisation of the quarter and the resprm-
dents would order in her favour accordingly. [1051-E-G] (-

1.4. The Circular dated 11.8.1992 being of gender discriminalion is
hereby brought in accord with Article 14 of the Constitution. The Circular
shall be taken to have been read dmm and deemed to have been read from
B its initiation in favour of the married daughter as one of the eligibles,
subject, amongst others, to the twin conditions that she is (1) a railway
employee; and (ii) the retiring ollicial has exercised the choice in her
favour for regularisation. [1052-A-C]

c 1996. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2441 of
From the Judgment and Order dated l.6.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal in New Delhi in 0.A. No. 2443 of 1994.

D Zaki Ahmad Khan for Anis Suharwardy for the Appellants.
,. r
Ashok Bhan and AK. Sharma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E 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,
F 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 accom-
G modation 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 he married daughter was one, and he needed her to look after him
and his ailing wife. His request was granted favourably in as much as on
H 31.5.1993, permission was granted to the first appellant to share railway
SAVITASAMVED!v. U.O.l. [PUNCHHI,J.] 1049

quarter of her father with effect from 16.3.1993 with the rider that she A
would not be entitled for regularisation 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
regularisation of the quarter contending that her brothers were not in a
position to look after her parents, whereas she was, and would in future
B
also look after her parents. The prayer was declined on 31.1.1994 on the
ground that a married daughter was not eligible for regularisation of a
railway quarter. The second appellant also made a representation to the
Divisional and Superintending Engineer (Estates), Northern Railways,
quoting instances where regularisation of railway accommodation had been
made in favour of married daughters. The request was forwarded by the c
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 D
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 havo thus knocked the doors of this Court
for appropriate relief.

The respondents in defence rely upon the Railway Board Circular E
dated 11.8.1992, whereunder regularisation is permitted on terms. The
operative part thereof reads as follows :

"Reference Railway Ministry' letters No. E(G) 82 OR 1- 23 dated
27.12.1982 and E(G) 85 OR 1-9 dated 15.1.90 as clarified vide their F
letters No. E(G)90 OR 1-11 dt. 15.3.91 and 1.7.91, conveying
instructions that when a Railway servant who is an allottee of
Rai]way accommodation retires from service, his/her son, unmar-
ried daughter, wife, husband or father as the case may be, may be
allotted Railway accommodation on out of turn basis subject to
fulfilment of prescribed condition. G

The Ministry of Railways have reviewed the matter and in
supercession of the instructions vide their letter No. E(G) 82 OR
dt. 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 H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A have any son or in case where the married daughter is the 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.

B The decision communicated above will also be equally ap-
plicable in the case death/medical unfitness."

As is obvious from the plain reading of the Circular, the married
daughter of a retiring official is eligible to obtain regularisation if her
C 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 regularisation of a railway quarter, but her right is depend-
D ent on contingencies. The authorities concerned as also the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal seemed to have overlooked the important and
predominant factor that a married daughter would be entitled to
regularisation only if she is a railway employee as otherwise, she by mere
relationship with the retiring official, is not entitled to regularisation.
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.
F
A common saying is worth pressing into service to blunt somewhat
the Circular. It is:

"A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is a daughter
throughout her life.''
G
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
H of his other children are, then his choice is and has to be limited to that
SAVITASAMVED!v. U.0.1. [PUNCHHLJ.] 1051

railway employee married daughter. He should be in an unfettered position A
to nominate that daughter for regularisation 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
B
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 14 of the Constitution. The eligibility of a married daughter must
be placed at par with an unmarried daughter (for she must have been once c
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 an ex-facie the condi- D
tions contained in the said Circular has 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 regularisation was E
permissible. As brought about before, the Tribunal overlooked this aspect
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 could be laid. In the instant case, the first
appellant, on that basis, alone was eligible (subject to gender disqualifica- F
tion 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 fulfilment 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. G

It was also pointed out before us that the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bombay Bench in one of its decision 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 v. Union of india and others, T.A. No. 467 of 1986, in H
y I
I

1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A which the earlier Circular of the railway board dated 27-2-1982 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
B be and is hereby brought in accord with Article 14 of the Constitution. The
Circular shall be taken to have been read down and 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 regularisation. It is so ordered.
c For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed and direction is
issued to the respondents to grant regularisation of the quarter in favour
of the first appellant with effect from the date of retirement of the second
appellant and regulate/readjust the charges on account of house rent
accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
D
R.P. Appeal allowed.