The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a married daughter cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely because she is married, particularly when married sons are being given the same benefit under the scheme.
The court held that treating married daughters differently from married sons is arbitrary, discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on grounds including sex.
What Is the Issue?
The case concerned the eligibility of married daughters for compassionate appointment after the death of their fathers, who were employees of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank.
Under the bank’s compassionate appointment scheme, a dependent family member of an employee who dies while in service may be considered for appointment to provide financial support to the family. The issue before the High Court was whether a daughter could be denied this benefit only because she was married.
What Happened?
The fathers of the two appellants were employees of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank and died while still in service.
After their deaths, their elder married daughters applied for compassionate appointment. However, the bank rejected their applications on the ground that married daughters were not covered as dependent family members under the scheme.
The women challenged the rejection before the High Court, arguing that excluding them because of their marital status amounted to discrimination based on gender and marriage.
Bank’s Argument
The bank argued that its scheme provided compassionate appointment to a “wholly dependent son or daughter”, but married daughters were not included within the definition of dependent family members.
According to the bank, a married daughter was generally presumed to become part of her matrimonial family and therefore would not ordinarily remain dependent on her parental family.
What Did the High Court Say?
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal rejected this approach.
The court pointed out that the scheme refers to a “wholly dependent son” and “wholly dependent daughter”, but it does not distinguish between married and unmarried daughters.
Similarly, there is no provision that excludes a son from being considered dependent merely because he is married. Therefore, the court held that dependency, and not marital status, is the deciding factor under the scheme.
Married Sons Were Given the Benefit
The court also noted that the bank had admitted that compassionate appointments had been granted to several married sons.
The bank attempted to justify the difference by relying on the traditional assumption that a married son generally continues to support his deceased father’s family, whereas a married daughter becomes part of her husband’s family.
The High Court rejected this reasoning.
Court Rejects Gender-Based Assumptions
The court held that constitutional guarantees of equality cannot be based on traditional or stereotypical assumptions about the roles of men and women.
If marriage does not automatically prevent a son from being considered a dependent family member, the same standard must apply to a daughter.
The court made it clear that a woman’s marriage cannot, by itself, be treated as proof that she is no longer dependent on her parents.
Dependency Must Be Decided on Facts
The High Court also rejected the argument that every married daughter should automatically be considered non-dependent.
The court observed that dependency is a question of fact. It has to be determined by examining the circumstances and evidence of each individual case.
In other words, authorities cannot replace the actual test of dependency with an automatic presumption that a married daughter is no longer dependent.
Supreme Court Judgment Distinguished
The bank had also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Deep Shikha v. National Insurance Company Limited.
However, the High Court held that the Supreme Court case concerned compensation for loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act and could not be automatically applied to a compassionate appointment scheme.
The court further observed that the Supreme Court judgment did not establish any absolute rule that a married daughter can never remain dependent on her parents.
High Court Directs Appointment
The High Court ultimately held that once the bank had provided compassionate appointment to married sons, denying the same consideration to married daughters solely because they were married was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
The court therefore allowed the two appeals and directed the respondent bank to issue orders granting compassionate appointment to the appellants.
Key Takeaway
The judgment makes it clear that marital status alone cannot be used to deny a married daughter compassionate appointment. The authorities must examine whether the applicant was actually dependent on the deceased employee. The same eligibility standard must be applied to sons and daughters without gender-based discrimination.
Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)
