Married Woman Can Claim Compassionate Appointment After Father's Death, No Presumption Of Dependence On Husband: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a married daughter cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment merely on the presumption that she is dependent upon her husband and not upon her deceased father. The Court observed that dependency is a question of fact to be determined on the evidence in each case and that marital status, by itself, cannot furnish a valid basis to...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a married daughter cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment merely on the presumption that she is dependent upon her husband and not upon her deceased father. The Court observed that dependency is a question of fact to be determined on the evidence in each case and that marital status, by itself, cannot furnish a valid basis to exclude a married daughter from consideration where the governing policy does not expressly bar her.
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal was hearing a writ petition filed by a married daughter challenging the rejection of her application for compassionate appointment following the death of her father, who was serving as Deputy Manager in the Bank of Maharashtra. The Bank rejected her claim on the ground that, being married, she was presumed to be dependent upon her husband and therefore could not be treated as a dependent family member of the deceased employee. The petitioner contended that the Bank's policy did not expressly exclude married daughters and that she was, in fact, financially dependent upon her father.
Examining the Bank's compassionate appointment policy, the Court found that it included "dependent daughter" within the definition of "dependent family member" without drawing any distinction between married and unmarried daughters. It further noted that the petitioner had specifically asserted in her application that she remained dependent upon her father due to personal economic circumstances and that the Bank had produced no material to establish otherwise. Instead, it had proceeded solely on the assumption that marriage necessarily made her dependent upon her husband.
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Kulsum Nisha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2026 SCC OnLine SC 1059] which held that exclusion of married daughters on the basis of marital status rests upon constitutionally impermissible gender stereotypes and violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. The High Court held that a daughter cannot be excluded merely on the ground of her being married.
“… married daughter cannot be excluded only on the ground that she is married daughter which is manifestly arbitrary and contrary to law laid down in Kulsum Nisha…” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's claim and directed the Bank to reconsider her application for compassionate appointment afresh in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Kulsum Nisha within thirty days.
Case Title: Afifa Khan @ Devangi Choudhary v. Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Maharashtra [W.P.(S) No. 3503 of 2020]