Married Daughter Can't Challenge Denial Of Compassionate Appointment In Absence Of Dependency, Financial Hardship Of Bereaved Family: Madras HC

Update: 2023-09-07 11:00 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article

The Madras High Court has made it clear that even though married daughters are equally eligible to be considered for compassionate employment, their appointment has to be considered on touchstone of criteria like dependency, financial status of the bereaved family, etc. Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji observed as under, “Undoubtedly, the principle of gender equality...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Madras High Court has made it clear that even though married daughters are equally eligible to be considered for compassionate employment, their appointment has to be considered on touchstone of criteria like dependency, financial status of the bereaved family, etc.

Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji observed as under,

Undoubtedly, the principle of gender equality and non-discrimination is of paramount importance. We accept that no contrary view can be taken in considering compassionate appointment for married daughters of the family unless they satisfy other criteria viz., dependency, financial status, etc., as laid down in the relevant Rules or Act,”

The court was hearing a plea challenging CAT's order refusing to interfere with denial of compassionate appointment to the married daughter of a Gangmate in the Southern railway who died in harness. The petitioners were the wife and daughter of the deceased employee.

The daughter, Venkateswari, submitted that since her brother and sister gave consent to apply for a compassionate appointment, she made a request to the Southern Railway seeking a compassionate appointment but it was rejected by the department. It was submitted that Venkateswari was taking care of the entire family. Thus, it was argued that merely on the ground that she was married, the request for an appointment was rejected.

Per contra, the Railways opposed the plea submitting that Venkateswari’s request for a compassionate appointment was rejected not because she was married but for the reason she did not fulfil the criteria laid down by the Railway Board for offering a compassionate appointment.

Relying on the Railway Board Letter dated February 3, 1981, it was submitted by the authorities that while considering the married daughter for compassionate appointment, the criteria for whether the married daughter will be the breadwinner for the bereaved family has to be examined. It was submitted that as per the Railway Board Letter, if there are no other wards to be looked after, there was no justification for considering a married daughter for a compassionate appointment.

The court noted that Venkateswari got married in 2006, four years before her father’s death. The court also noted that her brother and sisters were also married and her mother, i.e. wife of the deceased employee was receiving a family pension of Rs.18,734 and had no other minor children to take care of.

Thus, the court observed that the application was rejected not because of Venkateswari marital status but based on the financial status of the deceased's family. The court also emphasized that the Supreme Court in various decisions has held that the mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle the family to compassionate employment, the financial condition of the family has to be examined by the authorities.

Case Title: A Chinnaponnu v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 257


Tags:    

Similar News