Marriage can't disqualify women from compassionate jobs: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court ordered a state rural bank to appoint two married daughters on compassionate grounds. It said dependency, not marital status, must decide eligibility under the scheme.

In Short

• Bank scheme defines dependent family member without separating married daughters
• Two married women challenged earlier orders after their claims were denied
• HC found rejection arbitrary, violative of equality and non-discrimination guarantees

The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank to give compassionate appointments to two married daughters of deceased employees, holding that marriage cannot be treated as a disqualification when the bank's scheme does not make such a distinction. The court said the benefit available to married sons under the scheme must also apply to daughters if they meet the test of dependency.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal said rejecting the women solely because they were married was arbitrary, discriminatory and legally unsustainable. It held that denying compassionate appointment to married daughters on this basis, while granting the same benefit to married sons, violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

The court allowed two separate appeals filed by Sheena David, 33, of Bilaspur and Ankita Mishra, 32, of Raipur, challenging a single-bench order of May 7 as well as the consequential orders rejecting their claims. Their fathers, Noel Shailendra Kumar Johns and Mandan Kumar Panda, had died in harness while serving as a branch manager and an office assistant, respectively, with the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank.

The bench set aside the single-bench order and directed the bank to issue compassionate appointment orders to the two women for suitable posts in keeping with their educational qualifications. It said their marital status should not be treated as a disqualification and asked the bank to complete the appointments within 90 days of receiving the order passed on July 30.

The court noted that the bank's scheme includes a "wholly dependent son" and a "wholly dependent daughter" in the definition of a dependent family member, but does not classify daughters as married or unmarried. "Thus, the scheme itself makes dependency, and not marital status, the determinative criterion," the court observed.

It also recorded that the bank had admitted during the hearing that compassionate appointments had been granted to several sons who were already married.

Counsel for the respondents argued that a married son ordinarily continues to maintain the family of the deceased employee, while a married daughter is presumed to become part of her matrimonial family. Rejecting this, the court said the explanation was based on a broad social assumption and could not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

"If marriage does not by itself disqualify a son from being treated as a dependent family member, the same standard must necessarily apply while considering the case of a daughter," the court said, adding that in both cases the test has to be one of actual dependency and not marital status.

The bench also said the respondent authorities did not make any effort to find out whether the appellants continued to be wholly dependent on the deceased employees. Instead, it said, they proceeded on the erroneous assumption that marriage by itself ends dependency.

The court noted that when the two employees died in 2015 and 2016, the bank had no scheme for compassionate appointment and the dependants were entitled only to ex-gratia compensation, which was paid to the widows.

The bank later introduced its compassionate appointment policy in 2019 and, through an e-circular dated October 21, 2023, extended it retrospectively to employees who had died in harness on or after February 11, 2014.

The High Court said the appellants were therefore entitled to have their claims considered under the retrospective scheme, and the bank could not reject them only because they had married before their cases were taken up.

- Ends