Division Bench rules that marital status cannot be treated as a disqualification when the applicable bank policy does not distinguish between married sons and daughters
BILASPUR : The Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered a significant ruling on compassionate appointments, holding that a daughter cannot be denied employment on compassionate grounds merely because she is married.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed that where the applicable compassionate appointment scheme does not distinguish between married and unmarried daughters, marital status cannot be used as a ground to reject a daughter’s claim.
The ruling came while allowing two separate appeals filed by Sheena David of Bilaspur and Ankita Mishra of Raipur, whose fathers had died while serving in Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank.
Court Says Marriage Cannot Automatically End Dependency
The High Court made it clear that the determining factor for compassionate appointment should be actual dependency on the deceased employee, rather than the marital status of the dependent.
The court observed that if a married son can continue to be treated as a dependent family member after the death of an employee, there is no legal basis for applying a different standard to a married daughter.
According to the court, rejecting the claims of the appellants solely because they were married was arbitrary, discriminatory and legally unsustainable.
The Bench further held that such differential treatment would be contrary to the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Bank’s Own Policy Did Not Distinguish Between Married and Unmarried Daughters
A key aspect of the judgment was the wording of the bank’s compassionate appointment scheme.
The court noted that the scheme included a wholly dependent son and a wholly dependent daughter within the definition of a dependent family member. However, it did not classify daughters into married and unmarried categories.
The High Court therefore observed that the scheme itself made dependency, rather than marital status, the decisive criterion.
The court also took note of the fact that, during the proceedings, the bank had acknowledged that compassionate appointments had been granted in several cases to sons who were already married.
Court Rejects Traditional Assumption About Married Daughters
The respondents had argued that a married son generally continues to take care of the family of the deceased employee, whereas a married daughter becomes part of her husband’s family after marriage.
The High Court rejected this reasoning.
The Bench observed that such an assumption is based on a broad social perception and cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny when it results in unequal treatment between similarly placed male and female dependants.
The court emphasised that the authorities must determine whether a claimant was actually dependent upon the deceased employee instead of presuming that marriage automatically terminates such dependency.
Two Daughters Had Approached the High Court
The cases concerned the daughters of two employees of Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank who died while in service.
One of the deceased employees had served as a Branch Manager, while the other had worked as an Office Assistant.
The daughters had sought compassionate appointment under the bank’s applicable policy. Their claims, however, were rejected on the ground that they were married.
The matter eventually reached the High Court after the appellants challenged an earlier order of the Single Bench.
The Division Bench subsequently set aside the Single Bench’s May 7 order as well as the subsequent rejection orders concerning their claims.
Bank Directed to Consider Appointments Within 90 Days
The High Court directed the bank to issue orders for compassionate appointment to the two appellants against suitable posts commensurate with their educational qualifications.
The appointments have been directed to be completed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the court’s order.
Importantly, the bank has been directed not to treat the appellants’ marital status as a disqualification while considering their claims.
Background of the Compassionate Appointment Policy
The case also involved the history of the bank’s compassionate appointment policy.
The fathers of the two appellants died in service in 2015 and 2016. At that time, the bank did not have a compassionate appointment scheme in place. Instead, eligible dependants were provided ex-gratia compensation, which had been paid to the widows of the deceased employees.
The bank subsequently introduced its compassionate appointment policy in 2019.
Later, through an e-circular dated October 21, 2023, the bank extended the benefit of the scheme to families of employees who had died in service on or after February 11, 2014.
As a result, the appellants became eligible to have their claims examined under the subsequently applicable scheme.
High Court Says Earlier Rejection Was Legally Unsustainable
The High Court held that once the policy was made applicable to the relevant category of deceased employees, the appellants were entitled to have their claims considered in accordance with the scheme.
The authorities, however, rejected their applications primarily because they had married before their claims were considered.
The court found that the authorities had not undertaken the necessary examination of whether the appellants were actually dependent upon their deceased fathers.
Instead, the authorities proceeded on the assumption that marriage itself ended their dependency.
The High Court held that this approach was legally flawed.
Dependency Must Be Examined on Facts
The court stressed that compassionate appointment is intended to provide relief to the family of an employee who dies while in service and leaves the family facing financial hardship.
Therefore, the authorities must examine the factual circumstances of each claimant.
The Bench effectively laid down that marriage by itself cannot be treated as conclusive proof that a daughter is no longer dependent on her deceased parent.
Similarly, the fact that a son is married cannot automatically establish dependency.
The actual financial and familial circumstances must be examined in accordance with the applicable scheme.
Important Constitutional Implications
The judgment carries wider implications for gender equality in employment-related policies.
The High Court’s reasoning makes clear that administrative policies cannot be interpreted through traditional assumptions that automatically place married women in a different category from married men.
Where a policy recognises dependent sons and daughters without imposing a separate marital-status condition on daughters, authorities cannot introduce such a distinction through interpretation.
The court’s reliance on Articles 14 and 15 also reinforces the constitutional principle that similarly situated persons should be treated equally and that discrimination based on sex cannot be justified merely through traditional social assumptions.
Key Takeaway
The Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling establishes an important principle for compassionate appointment cases:
- A daughter cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely because she is married.
- Actual dependency should be examined rather than presumed from marital status.
- Married sons and married daughters should not be subjected to different standards when the governing policy makes no such distinction.
- Administrative authorities cannot introduce a disqualification that is absent from the applicable scheme.
- Differential treatment based solely on the daughter’s marital status may violate the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.
- In the present cases, the bank has been directed to consider and grant suitable compassionate appointments within 90 days.
A Significant Step Towards Gender-Neutral Interpretation
The judgment reinforces the principle that marital status cannot, by itself, determine whether a woman remains a dependent member of her parental family.
By directing the bank to reconsider the claims without treating marriage as a disqualification, the High Court has placed the emphasis where it belongs — on the terms of the applicable policy and the actual circumstances of dependency.
The ruling could have significance beyond the two individual cases, particularly in matters where government departments, public-sector institutions and banks frame or interpret compassionate appointment policies for dependants of employees who die while in service.
