In a significant decision, the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the State’s challenge against an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which directed the government to grant a compassionate appointment to a married daughter of a deceased government employee. The Court ruled that a married daughter is eligible for a compassionate job, even if her husband is employed.
Background of the Case
The case involved a permanent employee of the North Western Railway who passed away, leaving behind his married daughter as the sole surviving family member. After his death, she applied for a compassionate appointment. However, her application was rejected by the authorities, leading her to file an appeal before CAT.
The Tribunal reviewed the case and relied on a previous ruling in Smt. Heena Sheikh v. State of Rajasthan (known as the Heena Sheikh Case), where a full bench of the Rajasthan High Court had established that a married daughter is entitled to a compassionate job if she is the only surviving family member of the deceased employee. Based on this, CAT directed the concerned department to reconsider her application on merit.
State’s Argument and Court’s Ruling
The State opposed the Tribunal’s decision, arguing that since the daughter was married and her husband was earning, she should not be eligible for a compassionate appointment. However, a division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur rejected this argument.
The High Court ruled that CAT had correctly applied the Heena Sheikh Case and found no legal or factual error in its order. The Court also criticized the government’s rejection order, calling it a “non-speaking order”—meaning it did not provide proper reasoning. Since such orders have civil consequences, the Court held that they violate the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
With this ruling, the Rajasthan High Court reinforced the right of married daughters to compassionate employment if they are the sole surviving family members of a deceased government employee. The decision sets an important precedent for gender equality in compassionate job policies.
