(1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) This appeal voices a cry for gender justice.
(3.) 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 up to 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 favourably inasmuch as on 31/5/1993 permission was granted to the first appellant to share railwayquarter of her father with effect from 16/3/1993 with the rider that she 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 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 Railway, quoting instances where regularisation 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 Railway on 4/7/19944 pointing out that the first appellant was in railway service w. e. f. 25/2/19733, 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.