Compassionate Appointment Policy Can't Exclude Married Daughters : Supreme Court
The Court struck down the Bihar policy which allowed daughters to seek the benefit only if they are divorced or deserted.
The Supreme Court has held that a compassionate appointment policy cannot restrict eligibility to only divorced or deserted daughters while excluding other married daughters, ruling that such a classification is unconstitutional and violative of the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale struck down the relevant condition in the Bihar Government's policy dated December 10, 2014, while allowing the appeal filed by a woman whose claim for compassionate appointment following the death of her father had been rejected on the ground that she was neither divorced nor deserted.
The Court observed that it has consistently held that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son is unconstitutional.
"This Court has repeatedly held that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son is, per se, unconstitutional. On a perusal of the policy, we find that classification restricting eligibility only to a divorced or deserted daughter cannot be sustained in the eye of law."
Rejecting the State's justification that a married daughter is ordinarily expected to leave her parental home after marriage, the Bench said such a presumption has no place in law.
"There cannot be a presumption in law that, after marriage, a daughter severs her ties with her parental family and resides with husband in her matrimonial home."
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Patna High Court affirming the rejection of the appellant's application for compassionate appointment after the death of her father, a government employee. The authorities had relied on two grounds: an objection allegedly raised by the appellant's maternal uncle and the Bihar Government's 2014 policy, which made only divorced or deserted daughters eligible for compassionate appointment.
Appearing for the appellants, counsel submitted that the objection of the appellant's uncle no longer survived as he had already furnished a no-objection certificate. It was further argued that the policy discriminating against married daughters violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
The State, on the other hand, contended that the policy itself had not been challenged and argued that compassionate appointment is governed by policy and is not a matter of right. It also defended the classification by contending that a daughter ordinarily leaves her parental home after marriage.
The Supreme Court rejected the State's submissions. It noted that the appellant had specifically stated that although her divorce had not been formally recognised in law, she had been living with her parental family and enjoyed the support of her mother and brother.
The Bench held that even otherwise, the authorities could not deny consideration of her claim by adopting an unduly technical approach.
"In any event, adopting a hyper-technical approach cannot be a ground to deny consideration of her claim for compassionate appointment."
The Court also noted that the objection raised by the appellant's uncle no longer survived. Consequently, it set aside both the Patna High Court's judgment and the order rejecting the appellant's claim.
The respondent-State has been directed to consider the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment on its merits within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's order.
Case: Sayara Khatoon @ Shajara Khatoon & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11623 of 2026.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 745
Appearances:
For the Appellants: Ms. Rashmi Singh, Advocate; Mrs. Priyansha Sharma, AOR; Mr. Subhan Shankar Gogoi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR; Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Kumar Saurav, Advocate.
Related reports -