Denying Compassionate Appointment To Married Daughters While Granting It To Married Sons Is Unconstitutional: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that denial of compassionate appointment to married daughters solely on the ground of their marital status, when married sons have been granted such appointment under the same Scheme, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The Court further held that the issue of dependency is essentially one of fact and cannot be concluded merely by drawing a presumption from the marital status.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing two writ appeals filed by two women, whose fathers were employees of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, and had died in harness. As a result, the elder married daughters of the petitioners applied for grant of compassionate appointment, but the same was rejected by the respondent Department.
The appellants contended that the exclusion of the appellant from consideration solely on account of marriage amounts to discrimination founded upon gender and marital status and is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The Bank, on the other hand, submitted that the Scheme included a wholly dependent son or daughter but married daughters were not included within the definition of 'dependent family members'.
The Court noted that while the Scheme specifically uses the expressions wholly dependent son and wholly dependent daughter, it nowhere classifies a daughter as married or unmarried, and does not make any distinction in respect of a son on the basis of his marital status. The Court held that the Scheme itself makes dependency, and not marital status, the determinative criterion.
The Court noted that the Bank had admitted that compassionate appointments had been granted to several sons who were already married. It refuted the explanation that marriage of a son is irrelevant because, according to prevailing social practice, a married son ordinarily continues to maintain the family of the deceased employee, whereas a married daughter is presumed to become a part of her matrimonial family, holding that such an explanation cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
“Constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 15 do not permit such stereotypical assumptions to become the basis of administrative decision-making. 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 Court remarked.
The Court refuted the reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Deep Shikha v. National Insurance Company Limited, holding the said judgment arose under the Motor Vehicles Act in the context of compensation for loss of dependency and could not be mechanically transplanted into a scheme governing compassionate appointment.
“… the judgment itself does not lay down any inflexible proposition that every married daughter necessarily ceases to be dependent upon her parental family. Dependency is essentially a question of fact and has to be determined on the basis of evidence available in each individual case,” the Court clarified.
The Court further noted that the competent authority substituted the statutory requirement of "dependency" by an irrebuttable presumption founded exclusively on marital status, which is impermissible. The test has to remain one of actual dependency and not marital status.
“Once the respondent Bank has admittedly extended the benefit… to married sons… denial of the same consideration to married daughters solely on the basis of their marital status is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The issue of dependency is essentially one of fact and cannot be concluded merely by drawing a presumption from the marital status of the appellants,” the Court remarked.
Hence, allowing the appeals, the Court directed the respondent Bank to issue orders of compassionate appointment in favour of the appellants.
Case Title: Sheena David v. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank & Ors. [WA No. 616 of 2026]