'Doesn't Cease To Be Daughter After Marriage': Orissa High Court Orders Compassionate Appointment 26 Yrs After Father's Death

The Orissa High Court has held that a daughter's relation with her parents does not cease to exist after marriage, so as to her deny compassionate appointment in lieu of on-duty death of her father. The Court ordered the State Government to provide rehabilitory appointment to the married daughter of a deceased employee 26 years after he died in harness, i.e. in the year 1999.A Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that if marriage does not disqualify a son from staking claim for compassionate appointment, the same should also not hinder a daughter. In the words of the Court –“For the purpose of compassionate appointment, women, i.e., daughters constitute one homogenous class and that excluding the married daughters would create an artificial class within the class and therefore, would fall foul of doctrine of equality enshrined in Part III of the Constitution… If marriage is not a disability for sons of a deceased-employee to stake claim for compassionate appointment, it cannot be a disability for daughters too. An idea otherwise would offend the institutions of society such as family, marriage, etc. as obtaining in the civilized world.”One Hari Machha (the deceased employee) was working as a Mazdoor under Chief Construction Engineer, Poteru Irrigation Project in the period between 15.07.1969 and 19.12.1999. He died on 20.12.1999 after thirty years of spotless service, leaving behind his widow and sole daughter.After obtaining consent from the widow, the daughter made an application dated 21.08.2000 staking claim for compassionate appointment in lieu of her father's death in harness. Her application remained in the government cold-storage for eight years. In the interregnum, she got married in the year 2006. After a prolonged waiting period, the Engineer-in-Chief, by letters dated 26.08.2008 and 26.10.2009, conveyed the approval for compassionate appointment of the petitioner/daughter. The Additional Secretary to Government, by letter dated 06.04.2010, also conveyed the approval granted by the Secretary to the Government for such appointment. However, the appointment was denied subsequently on the ground that the petitioner got married in 2006. Aggrieved by the denial of appointment, the petitioner knocked at the portals of Orissa Administrative Tribunal, which did not extend any relief to her. Therefore, she filed this writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order.The Court, speaking through Justice Shripad, expressed serious dismay at the manner in which the government authorities not only delayed processing of the application but also whimsically rejected the petitioner's claim bereft of any empathy. It thus remarked –“Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment duly made in time came to be rejected only on the ground that she contracted marriage in 2006. This is absolutely obnoxious, to say the least, because: immediately after the death in harness, the application for compassionate appointment was made… Secondly, a son or daughter of a deceased employee cannot endlessly wait for the authorities to take the decision on the claim for compassionate appointment, inasmuch as aging being an inevitable consequence of run of the time; cannot be halted merely because the authorities are sleepy & tardy.”To defend its action, the government resorted to lean on Rule 2(b)(iii) of the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 which does not explicitly include a 'married daughter' within the definition of 'family members'. However, such contention could not satiate the Court, which relevantly observed –“Sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of Rule 2 of 1990 Rules is relevant for our consideration. Very notably, the term 'unmarried daughters' is employed in contra distinction to the term 'daughters who do not continue to be unmarried'. In other words, if the Rule Maker intended that a candidate, who contracts marriage after staking claim and during its pendency, shall become disentitled to such appointment. Therefore, the authorities could not have rejected petitioner's claim.”Moreover, the Court underlined that the application was made by the petitioner on 21.08.2000, six years before her marriage.“These Rules do not say that the claimant, who is otherwise eligible & qualified, would cease to be so if marriage is contracted subsequently. After all, right to marry, subject to applicable conditions, is an important facet of fundamental right to life & liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India vide Lata Singh v. State of UP. Therefore, the 1990 Rules should be construed consistent with this. After all, a daughter does not cease to be daughter after the marriage and she has an obligation to look after her dependent natal family…”Against the above backdrop, the Court found not only Articles 14 and 15 as solidifying factors in favour of the petitioner but also it held Article 1 and 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),...

'Doesn't Cease To Be Daughter After Marriage': Orissa High Court Orders Compassionate Appointment 26 Yrs After Father's Death

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags