(1.) Father of our nation said:-
(2.) The above stated quote squarely applies to the following facts of the case, which are as under:-
(3.) Return has been filed opposing the writ petition stating inter alia that married people form a class by themselves. If married daughters are taken out and classified as one group and married sons as another group from this class of married people, it cannot be said that it is a class legislation discriminating one group/class against the other. It has been pleaded that it is a reasonable classification of married daughters as one group as distinguished from the married sons classified as another group. The said classification has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits reasonable classification of a group from other groups, what it prohibits is a class legislation. It is a class legislation but a reasonable classification of different people into different groups. There cannot be a comparison between one member of one group and another member of another group for alleging discrimination. Discrimination can be alleged only if two members of the same group are differently treated. That is the case here and therefore there is no discrimination at all in the present case. The petition is founded on the allegation of discrimination which is non-existent in the present case and therefore the petition is maintainable and is liable to be dismissed by this Court. It was further pleaded that the object of the scheme is to reach financial assistance to the deceased employee's family. It cannot be said that financial assistance can be provided only by giving employment to one member of the family. Grant of compassionate appointment is one of the ways recognised to achieve this object but that is the only one. There is another way laid down by the compassionate appointment scheme of the respondents. It is by way of payment of annuity (regular payment) which is an additional financial benefit over and above payment of family pension, gratuity, etc. The widow of the deceased employee has been in receipt of payment of annuity and therefore the claim of the petitioner is in fact for a second benefit out of the compassionate appointment scheme which is permissible in law. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court. It was also pleaded that after the retirement of the employee from service he and all his family members depend upon the retiral dues and after his death before or after his retirement, his widow is entitled to get family pension throughout her life. Therefore, it cannot be said that the widow, that is the mother of the petitioner, is dependent on the petitioner and the petitioner has to look after her like a son does. Physical help she may need which the petitioner can extend while remaining out of service. Financial help she may need as she is in receipt of family pension every month. Since the widowed mother is alone, the family pension being paid to her every month should be taken as adequate for her maintenance. She is therefore financially dependent upon her daughter, the petitioner.