The Allahabad High Court has set aside a government order rejecting a woman's claim for a fair price shop dealership on compassionate grounds, ruling that a married daughter cannot be arbitrarily excluded from the definition of a "family" for extending a welfare measure.

The Court held that excluding a daughter from consideration solely on the basis of her marital status constitutes an unconstitutional classification based on gender stereotypes, which is directly violative of the guarantees of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Court emphasized that a purposive interpretation must be adopted to include married daughters under the dependent quota, provided they establish factual dependency on the deceased dealer and fulfill the requisite local residence and eligibility criteria.

The Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal said, "From the above analysis as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, it is clear that a married daughter is also included within the definition of “family” and is entitled to apply for appointment as a fair price shop dealer after the death of her father or mother, subject to fulfillment of other eligibility conditions such as local residence, no objection from other adult family members, and other prescribed requirements."

Advocate Daya Shankar Yadav appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Chief Standing Counsel Badrish Kumar Tripathi appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and a writ of mandamus commanding the said authority to appoint her as a Fair Price Shop dealer on compassionate grounds under the dependent quota. The father of the petitioner, who was the original allottee of the fair price shop dealership in the concerned village, died, leaving behind the petitioner as his dependent.

Subsequent to his demise, the petitioner submitted an application for the allotment of the said dealership on the ground that she continued to reside with her father even after her marriage and fulfilled all the requisite eligibility conditions as a local resident. However, the respondent authority rejected her application solely on the ground that she was a married daughter and therefore did not fall within the definition of "family" under the prevailing Control Order and Government Orders.

Contentions of the Parties

The Petitioner submitted that he, despite being married, was fully dependent on the deceased dealer and resided in the natal household. It was argued that denying a compassionate appointment merely on the basis of marital status was arbitrary, discriminatory, and directly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that the definition of "family" under the Control Order included dependent adult children without any qualification of gender or marital status.

The State-Respondents vehemently opposed the petition. It was submitted that even if a married daughter were considered eligible to apply, she was still legally mandated to satisfy other essential conditions, including local residence, absolute dependency, educational qualifications, and obtaining no-objection certificates from other adult family members.

Furthermore, the State raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, as an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner under the Control Order.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that the core controversy revolved around whether a married daughter could be completely excluded from the ambit of "family" for the purposes of a compassionate allotment.

The Court noted that a literal interpretation of the restrictive clauses in the Control Order and Government Orders would lead to an anomalous and absurd result, creating an unconstitutional classification based on gender stereotypes.

The Court further observed that the underlying object of the dependent quota was to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family and ensure the uninterrupted continuity of the public distribution system.

By applying a purposive construction to the rules, and the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P.[2026], the Court held that the expression "daughter" must be read inclusively to encompass a married daughter, provided she factually establishes her dependency and satisfies the local residence criteria.

"From a perusal of Clause 2(p) of the Control Order, 2016 as well as paragraph 4(1) of the Government Order, it is evident that the definition of “family” includes children fully dependent on the head of the family who was appointed as a fair price shop dealer in rural areas, though a separate clause has also been provided for inclusion of daughters, which specifically covers unmarried, legally separated, and widowed daughters. If the aforesaid provisions are interpreted conjointly by adopting a literal interpretation, it would lead to an anomalous and absurd result which was never intended by the legislature, as daughters cannot be arbitrarily classified into married and unmarried categories for the purpose of extending a welfare measure. Such an arbitrary classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination based on unreasonable classification", the Court said.

Consequently, the High Court found the impugned rejection order to be wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law, thereby setting it aside and remitting the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to pass a fresh order on the merits within a specified period.

Cause Title: Reena Devi Patel v. State of U.P. & Ors. [Neutral Citation:2026:AHC-LKO:41494]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Daya Shankar Yadav

Respondents: Additional Chief Standing Counsel Badrish Kumar Tripathi

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: