Srinagar: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held that appointment on compassionate grounds in government service cannot divest an individual of the right to remarry and sacrifice his or life.
The observation was made in a case wherein a widowed woman had remarried after being appointed in Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department subsequent to the death of her husband.
“Merely because compassionate appointment has been obtained by an individual, he or she cannot be forced to sacrifice his or her fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed on account of remarriage by a widow,” said the CAT.
The applicants, including the brother and the mother of the deceased, had prayed for the termination of the services of the “widowed” lady on the grounds of her remarriage.
“In view of the solemnization of 2nd marriage by the respondent lady (our widowed daughter-in-law), she has lost her right on the compassionate appointment in the vacancy felt vacant due to the death of her young husband,” said their counsel.
The counsel prayed for the appointment of the 32-year-old brother of the deceased, who claimed to be his dependent.
The CAT after perusing the details of the case and hearing arguments agreed with the counsel representing the remarried lady.
“The right of remarriage is a personal choice of the individual and the right to marry with the person of his or her choice is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” it said.
It held that companionship of choice by remarriage by a widow cannot be denied as companionship is one of the faculties by which life can be enjoyed.
The Tribunal held “even if a statutory provision is enacted to prohibit a remarriage by a widow, as a condition for employment under compassionate appointment rules, its validity may be liable to be challenged for breach of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.
It cited a judgment titled Smt. Subhwanti Devi vs. Siksha Adhikshak, Basic Siksha, Nagar Chetra, Allahabad & Ors., 1988, wherein it has been held that remarriage may be a social or a biological human necessity or it may be on account of oppressive or aggressive nature of certain anti-social elements, but that cannot be made the basis for termination of service.
The Tribunal held “the respondent remarried lady, is a Muslim by faith/religion and Islam nowhere prohibits remarriage of a widow which is also countenanced by the constitutional guarantee as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and there is no restrain by any personal law against remarriage”.
It said that in our social fabric and ethos it may be true that a daughter-in-law has to look after the old parents of her husband but she is not obliged to do it. If she does it, she does it for her own good in this world and hereafter.
The PHE in its reply stated that the brother of the deceased being a major person and in good health condition has his own ways and means to maintain himself. As such, he is not entitled to any amount from the salary of the remarried lady respondent.
The CAT accordingly dismissed the application.
