The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that denying compassionate appointment to a married daughter solely because of her marital status, while granting the same benefit to married sons, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The Court also held that dependency is a question of fact and cannot be determined merely on the basis of whether a daughter is married.
Background Of The Case
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing appeals filed by two women whose fathers, employees of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, had died while in service.
Their married daughters had applied for compassionate appointment, but their claims were rejected on the ground that married daughters were not considered dependent family members under the applicable scheme.
Court’s Key Observation
The Court noted that the scheme referred to a “wholly dependent son” and “wholly dependent daughter”, but did not expressly distinguish between married and unmarried daughters.
The Bench observed that the scheme made dependency, rather than marital status, the determining factor for compassionate appointment.
Married Sons Cannot Be Treated Differently
The Bank admitted that compassionate appointments had been granted to several sons who were already married.
The Court rejected the argument that a married son could continue to support his deceased parent’s family whereas a married daughter would ordinarily become part of her matrimonial family. The Bench held that such a presumption based on traditional social practices cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Dependency Is A Question Of Fact
The High Court emphasised that a person’s marital status cannot automatically establish whether that person is financially dependent on the deceased employee’s family.
Whether an applicant was actually dependent must be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the individual case.
Therefore, a married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration merely because she is married.
Articles 14 And 15 Of The Constitution
The Court held that once the Bank had extended the benefit of compassionate appointment to married sons, denying the same consideration to married daughters solely because of their marital status amounted to gender-based discrimination.
Such differential treatment was held to be arbitrary and contrary to the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15.
Supreme Court Judgment Distinguished
The Bank relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Deep Shikha v. National Insurance Company Limited to support its position regarding dependency.
The High Court, however, held that the Supreme Court decision arose in the context of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and could not be mechanically applied to a scheme governing compassionate appointment.
Court’s Decision
Allowing the appeals, the Chhattisgarh High Court directed the respondent Bank to issue orders granting compassionate appointment to the appellants.
The Court held that the denial of such appointment solely because the applicants were married daughters was unconstitutional.
Significance Of The Judgment
The ruling is significant because it:
- Protects married daughters from discriminatory exclusion in compassionate appointment schemes.
- Reaffirms equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
- Clarifies that marital status alone cannot determine dependency.
- Rejects gender-based assumptions regarding family responsibilities.
- Requires authorities to assess dependency on the basis of facts rather than social stereotypes.
- Ensures that similarly situated married sons and daughters are treated equally.
Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court’s judgment reinforces that marriage cannot be used as an automatic disqualification for a daughter seeking compassionate appointment, particularly when married sons are eligible for the same benefit. The Court’s decision places the actual question of dependency at the centre of the assessment and rejects traditional gender-based assumptions as a basis for differential treatment.
