Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Denied To Daughter Merely Because She Was Married Before Demise: Madras High Court

Justice C Kumarappan held that the authorities could not deny compassionate appointment, holding that the daughter was not wholly dependent on the deceased just because she was married before the date of death and living separately. The court held that such an approach would be wholly discriminatory and arbitrary.

“According to the respondents, there was no family, and that the petitioner is not a dependent upon the deceased employee on the date of his death On the face of it, this Court finds that the petitioner has been overtly discriminated merely on the ground that she happens to be the married daughter of the deceased employee. The very consideration of the fact that during 2019, the petitioner was residing at a different place from her father's residence, that too after the demise of the deceased employee, is arbitrary and ought not to have been a ground for rejecting the petitioner's request..,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by G Chitra against an order passed by the HRD Department of the Punjab National Bank rejecting her application for compassionate appointment.

According to the petitioner, her father died on November 30, 2015 while he was serving as Head Cashier in the Union Bank of India, which subsequently merged with the Punjab National Bank. After her father's death, she sought compassionate appointment, which was denied.

While rejecting the application for compassionate appointment, the authorities noted that the deceased was survived by a daughter (petitioner) and her brother, who was working as a Driver. It was also noted that the petitioner was married in July 2013, much before the death of the employee and thus, she could not be given compassionate appointment.

The petitioner argued that the authorities' conclusion was contrary to the constitutional mandate. It was submitted that the petitioner was a housewife and merely because she was residing outside the parental home after father's demise, it could not be concluded that she was not dependent on her father.

The Bank, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner did not satisfy the essential requirement to fall within the definition of “dependent”. It was submitted that she got married 2 years before her father's death, which would show that she was not dependent on her father. It was also argued that compassionate appointment was an exception and such appointment could not be made on grounds of sympathy, especially when thousands of unemployed meritorious persons were awaiting employment.

The court noted that the authorities had taken their decision based on an amendment which came into effect in 202-21, though the death occurred in 2015. The court stressed that while considering compassionate appointment, the policy prevailing at the time of death of the employee has to be followed.

The court also noted that even according to the counter filed by the authorities, the petitioner had shifted her residence in 2019 on account of water and drainage problems. The court thus noted that the appointment was rejected solely on the ground that the daughter was married before the date of death. Such understanding, the court said, was contrary to human values.

The court also added that the mere fact that the daughter's husband was earning was not sufficient to prove that she was not wholly dependent on the father.

"On a perusal of the aforesaid reason, it is amply clear that the respondents were of the view that merely on account of the marriage of the petitioner, being the daughter of the deceased employee, her dependency upon her father would cease. Such an understanding is contrary to human values and, in the present scenario, only demonstrates the ignorance of the authorities with regard to contemporary social realities," the court said.

Thus, the court was inclined to set aside the order and directed the authorities to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds within 8 weeks.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Y. Solomon

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. P. Raghunathan, for M/s. T. S. Gopalan & Co

Case Title: G Chitra v The Head Office and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 419

Case No: WP No 33934 of 2022