Marital status can’t disqualify daughters from compassionate jobs, says Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed a bank to grant compassionate appointments to two married daughters of deceased employees, observing that their marital status should not be treated as a disqualification when the bank’s scheme makes no distinction between a married son and a daughter.

Rejecting the daughters’ claims solely on marital status was arbitrary, discriminatory, and legally unsustainable in law, a division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal said in the order on July 30.

If marriage does not disqualify a son from being considered a dependent family member, the same principle must apply when assessing the case of a daughter, the HC noted. It held that denial of compassionate appointment to married daughters solely on the basis of their marital status, when married sons had been granted the same benefit under the scheme, was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

The court allowed two separate appeals filed by Sheena David (33) of Bilaspur and Ankita Mishra (32) of Raipur challenging the HC’s single-bench order.

Their fathers had died in harness while working with the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, and their claims for compassionate appointment were rejected because they were married.

The HC set aside a May 7 order of the single bench and the consequential orders rejecting their claims, and directed the bank to issue orders of compassionate appointment in their favour to suitable posts commensurate with their educational qualifications.

The women’s marital status should not be treated as a disqualification, the court said and directed that the appointments be made within 90 days from the date of receipt of its order.

It observed that the bank’s scheme defines a dependent family member to include a “wholly dependent son” and a “wholly dependent daughter”, but does not classify daughters as married or unmarried.

“Thus, the scheme itself makes dependency, and not marital status, the determinative criterion,” the HC observed.

It noted that the bank had admitted during the hearing that compassionate appointments had been granted to several sons who were already married.

The counsel for the respondents had argued that a married son ordinarily continues to maintain the family of the deceased employee, while a married daughter is presumed to become part of her matrimonial family.

Rejecting the argument, the court said such an explanation was based on a broad social assumption and could not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

“If marriage does not by itself disqualify a son from being treated as a dependent family member, the same standard must necessarily apply while considering the case of a daughter,” the HC said, adding that the test in both cases has to be one of actual dependency and not marital status.

The respondent authorities, while rejecting the applications of the appellants, did not undertake any exercise to ascertain whether the appellants continued to be wholly dependent upon the deceased employees and instead proceeded on the erroneous assumption that marriage, by itself, extinguishes dependency, it said.

The fathers of the two appellants, Noel Shailendra Kumar Johns and Mandan Kumar Panda, had worked as a branch manager and office assistant, respectively, with the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank and died in harness.

At the time of their deaths in 2015 and 2016, there was no scheme for compassionate appointment in the bank. The dependents were then entitled to ex-gratia compensation, which was paid to the widows.

The bank introduced its compassionate appointment policy in 2019 and, through an e-circular dated October 21, 2023, extended its benefit retrospectively to employees who had died in harness on or after February 11, 2014.

The High Court said the appellants consequently became entitled to have their claims examined under the retrospective scheme and that the bank could not reject their applications solely because they had married before consideration of their claims.

The court directed the bank to appoint the two appellants to suitable posts in accordance with the applicable scheme, without treating their marital status as a disqualification.