Introduction:
In Reena Devi Patel v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supply Department and Others [2026 LiveLaw (AB) 487], the Allahabad High Court delivered a significant judgment reaffirming the constitutional guarantee of equality by holding that a married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds merely because of her marital status. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal ruled that a married daughter falls within the definition of “family” under the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, provided she fulfills the remaining statutory conditions, including dependency, local residence and obtaining no objection from other adult family members.
The petitioner’s father, Raj Bahadur Patel, was a licensed fair price shop dealer in Gram Panchayat Chalakpur Kurmiyan, District Pratapgarh. Following his death on 2 November 2025, the petitioner applied for compassionate allotment of the dealership. She stated that despite her marriage, she continued to reside with her father, remained dependent upon him and fulfilled all eligibility conditions prescribed under the Control Order and the Government Order of 2019. However, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected her application solely because she was a married daughter.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the decision violated Article 14 and amounted to discrimination based solely on marital status. The case required the Court to determine whether the expression “family” under the Control Order excluded married daughters and whether such exclusion could withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that the rejection of her application was arbitrary and unconstitutional as it was based exclusively on her marital status. It was submitted that Clause 2(p) of the Control Order defines “family” broadly by including “adult children” dependent upon the head of the family. According to the petitioner, the expression “adult children” necessarily includes both sons and daughters, irrespective of whether they are married or unmarried.
The petitioner further contended that she had continued to reside with her father even after marriage and therefore satisfied the requirement of local residence prescribed under the Government Order of 2019. She argued that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure intended to protect the family of a deceased dealer from financial hardship, and excluding married daughters without any rational basis defeats the very object of the scheme. Such discrimination, it was submitted, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
The State defended the rejection by relying upon the provisions of the Control Order and the Government Order governing compassionate allotment of fair price shops. It was contended that the competent authority had acted in accordance with the existing understanding of the eligibility conditions. However, it was not disputed that if a married daughter otherwise fulfilled the statutory requirements and fell within the definition of “family,” she could not be denied consideration solely because she was married.
Court’s Judgment:
Allowing the writ petition, the Allahabad High Court held that the rejection order could not be sustained in law. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 is a beneficial piece of subordinate legislation framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to ensure effective distribution of essential commodities through the public distribution system. Being a welfare scheme, its provisions must receive a purposive and liberal interpretation rather than a narrow literal construction.
The Court examined Clause 2(p) of the Control Order alongside the Government Order of 2019 and held that the expression “adult children” cannot be interpreted to exclude married daughters. Reading the provisions literally would create an unreasonable distinction between married and unmarried daughters, producing an anomalous result never intended by the legislature.
The Court held that such classification fails the constitutional test under Article 14. Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in E.P. Royappa v. State of Madras (now Tamil Nadu), the Court reiterated that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality. It also relied upon State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, where the Supreme Court held that any classification must rest upon an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Court observed that differentiating daughters solely on the basis of marriage bears no rational connection with the objective of extending compassionate relief to the dependent family of a deceased fair price shop dealer.
Justice Deshwal further relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Kulsum Nisha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it was recognised that a married daughter may also be treated as part of the deceased dealer’s family if she establishes dependency and fulfills the prescribed eligibility conditions. The Court clarified that marital status alone cannot become a disqualification under the statutory scheme.
The High Court emphasised that while a married daughter is eligible for consideration, she must still satisfy all other conditions prescribed under the Control Order and the Government Order, including local residence, educational qualifications, minimum age, absence of criminal antecedents and obtaining the consent or no objection of the other adult family members wherever required.
Finding that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had rejected the petitioner’s application solely because she was married, the Court held that the decision suffered from arbitrariness and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The authority had failed to examine whether the petitioner fulfilled the remaining statutory conditions and had instead applied an impermissible ground of disqualification.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the rejection order and remitted the matter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for fresh consideration. The authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim in accordance with law and in light of the principles laid down in the judgment within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.
The judgment reinforces the constitutional principle that welfare schemes must be implemented in a manner consistent with equality and non-discrimination. By recognising that a married daughter forms part of the “family” for the purposes of compassionate allotment, the Court ensured that marital status cannot be used as an arbitrary barrier to deny legitimate statutory benefits.