The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15036 of 2021 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Manasi Mohapatra …. Petitioner State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties -versus- For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
4.3. It is also contended that this Court in the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera vs. Orissa Administrative Tribunal (W.P.(C) No. 14945 of 2015) as well as a decision of this Court in the case of Basanti Nayak Vs. State of Odisha & Ors., 2023 (I) OLR-297, has already held that even married daughters are eligible to get the benefit of Rehabilitation Appointment. This Court in the case of Basanti Nayak in Para 10 to 12 has held as follows:- “10. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Supreme Court held that the object of compassionate appointment is to help the family lied over the crisis that befalls them on the circumstance, so that the family will not be put to jeopardy by being driven to impecuniosities and condemned by penury. It is for this reason the emphasis on appointment on compassionate grounds is immediacy of appointment. This principle has been laid down in various judgments of the apex Court and, as such, the compassionate appointment is by now too well settled that it is not a matter of right and not an alternate source of recruitment. 11. In the case of C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India (1979) 4 SCC 260, the Supreme Court in the context of Indian Foreign Service (Conduct and Discipline). Rules, 1961, which prohibits appointment of married woman in paragraphs-6 and 7 as follows: to such service, held "At the first blush this rule is in defiance of Article 16. If a married man has a right, a married woman, other things being equal, stands on no worse footing. This misogynous posture is a hangover of the masculine culture of manacling the weaker sex forgetting how our struggle for national freedom was also a battle against woman’s thralldom. Freedom is indivisible, so is justice. That our founding faith enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 should have been tragically ignored vis-(cid:224)-vis. half of India’s humanity viz. our women, is a sad reflection on the distance between Page 3 of 7 // 4 // Constitution in the book and law in action. And if the executive as the surrogate of Parliament, makes rules in the teeth of Part III especially when high political office, even diplomatic assignment has been filled by women, the inference of diehard allergy to gender parity is inevitable. We do not mean to universalize or dogmatise that men and women are equal in all occupations and all situations and do not exclude the need to pragmatise where the requirements of particular employment, the sensitivities of sex or the peculiarities of societal sectors or the handicaps of either sex may compel selectivity. But save where the differentiation is demonstrable, the rule of equality must govern." Similar view has also been taken by the Bombay High Court in Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v.State of Maharashtra (2014) 5 Mah LJ 543. 12. In the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera v. Orissa Administrative Tribunal (W.P.(C) No. 14945 of 2015), this Court observed that: of and death untimely unexpected "The Apex Court in number of cases repeatedly emphasized the need of compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased Government servant without any loss of time. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment to enable the dependent(s) of deceased’s family to earn bread and butter for the family and to come out from financial crisis, who suffers on account of deceased/Government servant therefore, the criteria to grant compassionate appointment should be ’dependency rather than ’marriage’. In a given case, a ’married’ daughter might be deserted wife, might have been abandoned wife, fully dependent upon her father, she might have been married to an indigent husband so that both the married daughter and son-in-law could have been dependent of the bread winner whose death left them to extreme financial hardship. There might be many other probabilities in which married daughter might be fully dependent upon the income of her father so that the death of the father to leave her and rest of the family members in extreme financial hardship. Therefore, the yardstick for extending the benefit of the compassionate appointment should be dependency of dependents on the deceased Government Servant and their marital status of dependent should not be impediment for his/her consideration on compassionate ground to wipeout leaves from Page 4 of 7 // 5 // the eyes of the suffering family on account of loss of earning member in the family. A daughter after her marriage doesn’t cease to be daughter of the father or mother and obliged to maintain their parents and daughter cannot be allowed to escape it’s responsibility on the ground that she is now married, therefore, such a policy of the ’married’ daughter and State Government disqualifying, a excluding her from consideration apart from being arbitrary and discriminating is retrograde step of State Government as welfare State, on which stamp of approval cannot be made by this Court."” 4.4. Similarly, this Court in the case of Kshirabadi Bala Behera has held as follows:- therefore, “The Apex Court in number of cases repeatedly emphasized the need of compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased Government servant without any loss of time. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment to enable the dependent(s) of deceased’s family to earn bread and butter for the family and to come out from financial crisis, who suffers on account of unexpected and untimely the death of deceased/Government servant criteria to grant compassionate appointment should be ’dependency rather than ’marriage’. In a given case, a ’married’ daughter might be deserted wife, might have been abandoned wife, fully dependent upon her father, she might have been married to an indigent husband so that both the married daughter and son-in-law could have been dependent of the bread winner whose death left them to extreme financial hardship. There might be many other probabilities in which married daughter might be fully dependent upon the income of her father so that the death of the father to leave her and rest of the family members in extreme financial hardship. Therefore, the yardstick for extending the benefit of compassionate appointment should be dependency of the deceased Government Servant and their marital status of dependent should not be impediment for his/her consideration on compassionate ground to wipeout leaves from the eyes of the dependents on Page 5 of 7 // 6 // the suffering family on account of loss of earning member in the family. A daughter after her marriage doesn’t cease to be daughter of the father or mother and obliged to maintain their parents and daughter cannot be allowed to escape it’s responsibility on the ground that she is now married, the State Government therefore, such a policy of disqualifying, a ’married’ daughter and excluding her from consideration and discriminating is retrograde step of State Government as welfare State, on which stamp of approval cannot be made by this Court.” arbitrary being apart from 4.5. Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate while supporting the impugned rejected, contended that since by the time Petitioner’s case was considered, she had already got married and as provided under Rule 2(b) of the Rules, married daughter is not coming within the definition of family, Petitioner’s claim was accordingly rejected. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that on the death of the deceased employee on 06.03.2013, Petitioner being the only daughter of the deceased employee, made the application on 06.11.2013. 6.1. It is found from the record that such application of the Petitioner was not only entertained but also was processed and distress certificate was submitted by the concerned Collector. However, on the ground that Petitioner got married in the meantime, Petitioner’s claim Page 6 of 7 // 7 // was rejected vide the impugned communication dtd.16.03.2020 under Annexure-9. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Basanti Nayak as well as Kshirabadi Bala Behera as cited supra, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. Since Petitioner was unmarried at the time of making the application and because of the delay involved Petitioner got married, it cannot stand as a bar in considering the claim. 6.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned rejection so available under Annexure-9. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision and the Petitioner’s claim in the light of the decision in the case of Basanti Nayak as well as Kshirabadi Bala Behera as cited supra. Such a fresh decision will be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner.
Arguments
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Tripathy Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 22.10.2025 and Date of Judgment: 22.10.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- // 2 // “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the order dtd: 16.03.2020 of the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-9 and direct the Opposite Parties to engage the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistant Scheme of the State Government as per her marital status as per the rule prevailing father and/or on the date of her application and to grant her all consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper; on the date of death of her And/or pass any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions in the fitness of the case. And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that on the death of the Petitioner’s father on 06.03.2013, Petitioner being the only child/daughter of the deceased, made the application on 06.11.2023 to get the benefit of Rehabilitation Appointment. 4.1. It is contended that in consideration of such application, not only distress certificate was issued but also the matter was processed at length, but ultimately vide the impugned communication dtd.16.03.2020 under Annexure-9, claim of the Petitioner was rejected only on the ground that Petitioner has got married in the meantime and accordingly not entitled to get the benefit in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 2(b) of the OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since by the time Petitioner made the application, she was unmarried and during consideration of her claim, Petitioner got married, there was no Page 2 of 7 // 3 // occasion to reject the Petitioner’s claim on the ground indicated in Annexure-9.
Decision
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 22nd of October, 2025/Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Oct-2025 15:05:38 Page 7 of 7