Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23888 of 2020 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). N. Sonam Shilpa …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Union of India & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: : For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bisikesan Pradhan, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Satyabrata Panda, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-12.07.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -24.09.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to contest the order dated 05.06.2018, issued by Opp. Party No. 5, which denied her claim for a compassionate appointment in the CISF based on the fact that the Petitioner was married before the death of her father. The Petitioner asserts that this decision is arbitrary and violates her rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The crux of the matter as submitted by the Petitioner: Page 1 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 (i) The petitioner’s father was serving in the Central Industrial Security Force as ASI/Exe. While posted at the CISF Unit in BSL, Bokaro, and undergoing medical treatment, he passed away on 11.09.2016. (ii) After completing the funeral rites for her father, the petitioner, as the deceased’s daughter, applied for a compassionate appointment. She was physically and medically fit for the position. The petitioner states that her mother was dependent on her and lived with her both before and after her marriage. The petitioner has been responsible for caring for her mother as well as her 92-year-old mother-in-law, as her brother, who is employed elsewhere and lives away from home, neither sought a compassionate appointment in the CISF nor did he show interest in caring for their widowed mother or grandmother. Additionally, her brother was ineligible for the appointment due to age restrictions. On the other hand, the petitioner’s husband is employed in a private company, earning a meager salary insufficient to support the household adequately. (iii) By a letter dated 30.10.2017, the Commandant of CISF Unit, BSL, Bokaro (“Opp. Party No. 6”) requested the petitioner’s mother to submit: (a) a
Legal Reasoning
certificate from her daughter (the petitioner) affirming that she would provide financial support to her widowed mother, and (b) the marriage certificate of her daughter, specifying the exact date, issued by the appropriate authority. In compliance with this request, the petitioner’s mother submitted: (a) an affidavit sworn by the petitioner before the Notary Public, Kendrapara, on 10.11.2017, wherein the petitioner affirmed that she would support her widowed mother, covering her Page 2 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 maintenance and daily expenses for the remainder of her life to ensure her well-being; and (b) a copy of the petitioner’s marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Officer, Kendrapara, on 14.03.2017. (iv) After receiving the aforementioned documents, on 26.02.2018, the Deputy Commandant (Administration) of CISF Unit, BSL, Bokaro requested the petitioner’s mother to clarify whether the petitioner, being married, was still dependent on her. On 17.03.2018, he again asked the petitioner’s mother to provide supporting documents from a Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) or higher authority confirming the petitioner’s dependency, as well as an unemployment certificate for the petitioner’s husband. (v) In response to the Deputy Commandant’s letters, the petitioner submitted an application to the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara, on 31.03.2018, requesting the issuance of a dependency certificate in her favor, and attached a dependency certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Karilopatna Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of Kendrapara, via letter dated 02.04.2018, directed the Tahasildar of Marshaghai to conduct an inquiry into the petitioner’s case and submit a report. (vi) The Tahasildar of Marshaghai submitted a report from the Revenue Inspector (RI) of Karilopatna Circle to the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of Kendrapara on 04.04.2018. The report stated that the petitioner, N. Sonam Shilpa, had applied for a compassionate appointment as she had been dependent on her deceased father and, after his death, was relying on the family pension received by her Page 3 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 widowed mother. However, the Sub-Collector of Kendrapara refused to issue a dependency certificate in her favor, citing the absence of any provision for such a certificate under the Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules. Following this, the petitioner’s mother submitted a representation, enclosing the Tahasildar’s report dated 04.04.2018, along with an affidavit executed by the petitioner’s husband before the Notary Public, Kendrapara, on 02.04.2018, affirming that he had not secured employment in any government or semi-government department for his livelihood. (vii) After receiving the above documents, the Deputy Inspector General of CISF Unit, BSL, Bokaro (“Opp. Party No. 5”), issued an order dated 05.06.2018, informing the petitioner that, since she was married before the death of her father, she could not be considered dependent on her deceased father. Therefore, her request for a compassionate appointment could not be considered in accordance with the relevant rules. (viii) Following the issuance of the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 by Opposite Party No. 5, the petitioner’s mother submitted a representation to the Director General (DG) of the CISF (“Opp. Party No. 2”) on 21.07.2018, via registered post, challenging the decision. She argued that if her daughter’s marital status was a disqualifying factor for compassionate appointment, the application and supporting documents should not have been accepted at the outset. The rejection only came after all documents were submitted. As such, she requested reconsideration of her daughter’s case for compassionate appointment. Page 4 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 (ix) More than a year passed without any response to the representation. However, on 06.09.2019, the Assistant Inspector General (Asst. IG) of the Eastern Sector Headquarters, Ranchi (“Opp. Party No. 4”), informed the petitioner’s mother, referring to a letter dated 06.11.2018 from the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of the CISF Unit, BSL, Bokaro (Opposite Party No. 5), that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was denied because she had married before her father’s death. The letter dated 06.11.2018 from Opp. Party No. 5 was never received by the petitioner’s mother. Consequently, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 23165 of 2019 before this Court on 25.11.2019, challenging the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 of Opposite Party No. 5. Additionally, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 16297 of 2019, seeking to dispense with the filing of the original copy of the impugned order, as it had been inadvertently enclosed by the petitioner’s mother in her representation to the DG, CISF (Opposite Party No. 2) on 21.07.2018. However, this Court ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable without the original or certified copy of the impugned order. Accordingly, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition on 05.12.2019, with liberty to file a fresh writ petition along with a certified copy of the impugned order. The Court allowed the
Decision
petitioner’s request and disposed of the writ petition on 05.12.2019. (x) On 06.12.2019, the petitioner filed an application before the CPIO of OP No. 5 under RTI Act requesting for copy of the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 of OP No. 5. However, the CPIO vide order dated 14.12.2019 rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 24 of the RTI Act, Page 5 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 II. 3. (i) 2005. Accordingly, the petitioner filed First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 26.12.2019. However, the first appeal was rejected by the First Appellate Authority on self-same ground on 21.01.2020 against which the petitioner filed Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi on 08.02.2020. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER : Learned counsel for the Petitioner intently made the following submissions: The petitioner got married on 31.05.2015 while her father, Late ASI/Exe Rajkishore Nayak, was employed with the CISF. As her husband was employed in a private company with a meager salary, the petitioner remained financially dependent on her father and continued residing with her parents at her maternal home even after marriage, as she was responsible for their care. Her brother, being employed and residing elsewhere, was unable to provide support. Due to her husband’s financial hardship and the lack of any other family member to care for her widowed mother and her 92-year-old grandmother, who was suffering from cancer, the petitioner remained fully dependent on her parents. Following her father’s death, she continued to reside at her maternal home, caring for her widowed mother. (ii) The dependency certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Karilopatna Gram Panchayat and the report from the Revenue Inspector (RI) of Karilopatna Circle, forwarded by the Tahasildar of Marshaghai to the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of Kendrapara, clearly Page 6 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 demonstrates that the petitioner is wholly dependent on her widowed mother. (iii) Despite being fully aware that the petitioner was married before the death of her father, the opposite parties repeatedly requested various documents from the petitioner and her widowed mother. Both the petitioner and her mother complied with these requests. However, the impugned order dated 05.06.2018, issued by Opp. Party No. 5, rejecting the petitioner’s request for a compassionate appointment on the grounds that she was married before her father’s death and could not be considered dependent on him, is illegal and arbitrary. (iv) The petitioner’s mother, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.06.2018, submitted a representation to Opp. Party No. 2. She contended that her daughter’s case was not unique, as other married daughters had previously been considered for compassionate appointments following the death of their fathers. However, the letter dated 06.09.2019 from Opposite Party No. 4, referring to a non-received letter dated 06.11.2018 from Opp. Party No. 5, is also illegal. (v) The Government of India, through the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training), issued consolidated instructions on 16.01.2013 for compassionate appointments, reaffirming Office Memorandum dated 09.10.1998. Additionally, through a letter dated 30.05.2013 (FAQ), the Department of Personnel & Training clarified that a “Married Daughter” (Para-12) could be considered for a compassionate appointment, provided that: (i) she was wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the Page 7 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 time of their death in service or retirement on medical grounds, and (ii) she supports other dependent family members. Therefore, the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 (Annexure-11) issued by Opposite Party No. 5 is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, warranting its quashing in the interest of justice. This view has been upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court (FB) in Udham Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another v. Anjula Singh and others on 27.03.2019 and by the Allahabad High Court (DB) in Mala Devi vs. State of U.P. on 13.02.2020. (vi) The impugned order dated 05.06.2018, rejecting the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment in the CISF, was issued by Opposite Party No. 5 and communicated to the petitioner at her home in the district of Kendrapara, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. All correspondences have also been sent to her home address in Kendrapara. (vii) The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Opp. Party No. 5, as well as the First Appellate Authority, rejected the petitioner’s application seeking a copy of the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 under Proviso-2 to Section 24 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, on the ground that the CISF is a security organization and the impugned order does not pertain to either corruption or human rights violations. This rejection was upheld by the First Appellate Authority. Although the petitioner filed a second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC), New Delhi, on 08.02.2020, the outcome of the appeal is unlikely to be resolved within 2-3 years, especially given Page 8 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 the delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. By that time, the petitioner may become age-barred, rendering her application for a compassionate appointment would become infructuous. It is important to note that neither the CPIO nor the First Appellate Authority disputed the existence of the impugned order dated 05.06.2018; they only refused to provide a copy of it due to the statutory bar under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. III. 4. (i) SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES : Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties intently made the following submissions: The said Sub-Officer (Inspector/Exe.) had submitted the inquiry report based on the information/details provided by Smt. Sukanti Nayak i.e. mother of the petitioner. But, subsequently, she disclosed that her son is serving elsewhere and, staying away from home. Moreover, he is over aged for Government service. (ii) Thereafter, on receipt of the various relevant supporting documents from the mother of the petitioner in piecemeal duly rectifying observations raised by the office of DIG/CISF Unit BSL Bokaro, finally the matter was forwarded to CISF ES (HQrs.) Ranchi vide CISF Unit BSL Bokaro letter dated 17.05.2018 for appointment of the petitioner on Compassionate Ground, for the post of ASI/Exe in CISF. But on examination of supporting documents, it was noticed by ES / HQrs. Ranchi that the petitioner already got married with Shri Manoranjan Pradhan of District - Kendrapara (Orissa) on 31.05.2015 i.e before death Page 9 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 of his father Late ASI/Exe Rajkishore Nayak. Accordingly, it was intimated by ES/HQrs. Ranchi vide letter dated 24.05.2018 that as per DoP&T clarification dated 30.05.2013: “Married daughter can be considered for Compassionate Appointment but subject to condition that she was wholly dependent on the Government servant at the time of his/her death in harness or retirement on medical grounds” and also directed to intimate the petitioner that her case could not be considered for Compassionate Appointment as, she had already got married before death of his father and was not a dependent upon his father at the time of his death (Late ASI/Exe Rajkishore Nayak) (iii) The object to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant who has died while in service, thereby leaving the family in penury and without any means of sustainable livelihood so as to provide relief to the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. (iv) As per report submitted by the Insp./Exe. as well as documents provided by Smt. Sukanti Nayak wife of the deceased, the matter was forwarded to CISF ES (HQrs.) Ranchi vide office letter dated 17.05.2018 for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. (v) But, on examination of supporting documents, it was noticed by ES/HQrs. Ranchi that the petitioner already got married with Shri Manoranjan Pradhan of District-Kendrapara (Orissa) on 31.05.2015 i.e. before death of her father Late ASI/Exe Rajkishore Nayak. Accordingly, it was intimated by CISF ES/HQrs. Ranchi vide letter dated 24.05.2018 Page 10 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 that as per DoP&T clarification dated 30.05.2013: “Married daughter can be considered for Compassionate Appointment but subject to conditions: that she was wholly dependent on the Government servant at the time of his/her death in harness or retirement on medical grounds”. (vi) Accordingly, the petitioner had been informed vide office of the DIG, CISF Unit BSL Bokaro letter dated 05/06/2018 that her case could not be considered for Compassionate Appointment as she had already got married before death of his father and not depended upon his father at the time of his death. (vii) As per procedure, to verify the financial conditions, number of dependants, liabilities of family etc. of the deceased, Inspector/Exe. Kulamani Behera (not Beura) had been detailed to the native place of Late ASI/Exe Rajkishore Nayak to conduct a circumstantial enquiry. As per report submitted by the. Insp./Exe. as well as documents produced by Smt. Sukanti Nayak wife of Late ASI/Exe Rajkishore Nayak, the matter was taken up with CISF ES (HQrs.) Ranchi for appointment of the petitioner on Compassionate Ground, to the post of ASI/Exe in CISF But, in the light of DoP&T clarification dated 30.05.2013, her case could not be considered for Compassionate Appointment, since the petitioner already got married on 31.05.2015 i.e. before the death of deceased and not depended upon his father on 11.09.2016. (viii) As regards dependency certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Karilopatna, it is submitted that on 04.03.2018, a letter was issued by Shri Sukanta Kumar Sahoo, Sarpanch, Karilopatna Grama Panchayat in which he stated that the petitioner was married but her husband (i.e. Manoranjan Page 11 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 Pradhan) was not employed. However, it was certified by the authorized signatory of ‘Parents Eye Private Limited’ mentioning therein “Mr. Manoranjan Pradhan is working in our organization as ‘Field Technician’ since 12th August 2015. He is a Full-time permanent employee in our organization..... His monthly drawing salary is Rs.4,600/-...”. These facts have also been accepted by the petitioner at para- 15 of this writ petition. Hence, the letter/certificate issued by the Sarpanch is ambiguous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. (ix) Moreover, looking after of widow mother by a married daughter and married daughter is wholly dependent on her parents are two different issues. A married daughter can easily look after her aged widow mother but that does not mean she remains wholly dependent upon her widow aged mother. Apart from above, the petitioner had failed to produce dependent certificate duly issued by the prescribed authority. Hence, her candidature could not be considered by the competent authority for Compassionate Appointment in CISF, in the light of DoP&T clarification dated 30.05.2013 IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and relied on the material placed on record. 6. For the record, there is no dispute in the fact that the petitioner’s late father, who served as an ASI/Ex in the CISF, passed away while still in active service. As a legal heir of the deceased, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, which governs the appointment of legal heirs of deceased Page 12 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 government servants. The petitioner’s mother, in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, duly submitted the application and all requisite documents. However, the petitioner’s application was rejected by Opposite Party No. 5 on the grounds that (i) the petitioner was married at the time of her father’s death, and (ii) the family of the deceased was not in immediate need of financial assistance. This court shall now address both the grounds and decide accordingly. 7. It is trite in law that eligibility for compassionate appointment hinges on proving severe financial hardship and the inability of the applicant or the family to sustain themselves following the death of the government employee. Crucially, the criteria for compassionate appointment do not differentiate between married or unmarried daughters and married sons. The primary consideration is whether the individual was financially dependent on the deceased for daily living expenses and is therefore likely to experience considerable financial difficulty after the death of the breadwinner. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to address the urgent financial needs of the family caused by the loss of income due to the demise, rather than to grant employment as an automatic entitlement or inheritance. This fundamental principle applies universally, without regard to marital status, and aims solely to provide relief to those who were truly reliant on the deceased for sustenance. Page 13 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 8. I had an opportunity to deal with a similar question of law in Seemarani Pandab v. State of Odisha & Ors.,1 wherein this Court held that dismissal of the candidature of a married daughter for compassionate appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is not justifiable as it is arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees as envisaged in Articles 14, 15 and 16(2) of the Constitution. The relevant excerpt is produced hereinbelow: “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 her responsibility on the ground that she is now married, therefore, such a policy of the State Government disqualifying, a ‘married’ daughter and excluding her from consideration apart from being arbitrary and discriminating is a retrograde step of State Government as welfare State, on which stamp of approval cannot be made by this Court…” 9. Now, The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties has relied upon the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) clarification dated 30.05.2013, which permits the consideration of a married daughter for compassionate appointment, subject to the condition that she was wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of their death while in service or upon retirement due to medical reasons. The petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was denied on the grounds that she had married on 31.05.2015, prior to the death of her father on 11.09.2016, and was not deemed to be financially dependent on him at the time of his demise. 1 RVWPET No. 416 of 2023 Page 14 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 10. The Opposite Parties have sought to emphasize that the petitioner’s marriage prior to her father’s demise implies a separation from her parental family, effectively suggesting that a married daughter’s ties and responsibilities to her natal family are severed upon marriage. This position, as asserted by the state in its counter-affidavit, is grounded in a paternalistic and outdated understanding of a woman’s role in society, particularly the status of a daughter following her marriage. The affidavit presupposes that upon entering matrimony, a daughter is subsumed into her husband’s family and that her financial well-being thereafter becomes the exclusive responsibility of her spouse. Such a stance undermines the autonomy of married daughters and perpetuates a regressive notion that denies them their rightful place within their parental family, even in cases of genuine need and dependency. 11. It will be relevant to refer to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Madhavi Mishra v. State of U.P., wherein it was held that Marriage cannot be a valid ground to exclude someone from being considered a member of the family under a social welfare policy based on dependency. In cases of compassionate appointment, the key test is dependency, not marital status. The relevant excerpt is produced hereinbelow: “Marriage cannot be regarded as a justifiable ground to define and exclude from who constitutes a member of the family when the state has adopted a social welfare policy which is grounded on dependency. The test in matters of compassionate appointment is a test of dependency within defined relationships. There are situations where a son of the deceased government servant may not be in need of compassionate appointment because the Page 15 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 economic and financial position of the family of the deceased are not such as to require the grant of compassionate appointment on a preferential basis. But the dependency or a lack of dependency is a matter which is not determined a priori on the basis of whether or not the son is married. Similarly, whether or not a daughter of a deceased should be granted compassionate appointment has to be defined with reference to whether, on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, she was dependent on the deceased government servant. Excluding daughters purely on the ground of marriage would constitute an impermissible discrimination and be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. A variety of situations can be envisaged where the application of the rule would be invidious and discriminatory. The deceased government servant may have only surviving married daughters to look after the widowed parent - father or mother. The daughters may be the only persons to look after a family in distress after the death of the bread earner. Yet, under the rule, no daughter can seek compassionate appointment only because she is married. The family of the deceased employee will not be able to tide over the financial crisis from the untimely death of its wage earner who has died in harness. The purpose and spirit underlying the grant of compassionate appointment stands defeated. In a given situation, even though the deceased government employee leaves behind a surviving son, he may not in fact be looking after the welfare of the surviving parents. Only a daughter may be the source of solace - emotional and financial, in certain cases. These are not isolated situations but social realities in India. A surviving son may have left the village, town or state in search of employment in a metropolitan city. The daughter may be the one to care for a surviving parent. Yet the rule deprives the daughter of compassionate appointment only because she is married. Our law must evolve in a robust manner to accommodate social contexts. The grant of compassionate appointment is not just a social welfare benefit which is allowed to the person who is granted employment. The purpose of the Page 16 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 benefit is to enable the family of a deceased government servant, in harness, to be supported by the grant of who dies compassionate appointment to a member of the family. Excluding a married daughter from the ambit of the family may well defeat the object of the social welfare benefit.” 12. Similarly, in many exemplary decisions such as State of W.B. v. Purnima Das, 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 13121; Court on its own motion v. State of H.P., 2018 SCC OnLine HP 2177; Central Coalfields Limited v. Hemanti Devi, 2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 918; State of U.P. v. Noopur Srivastava, 2019 SCC OnLine All 3212; Udham Singh Nagar District Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Anjula Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 1856; Meenakshi Dubey v. Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine MP 383 wherein, the High Courts have consistently upheld the principle that married daughters are to be treated on an equal footing with unmarried daughters, and both married and unmarried sons, particularly, in matters of family responsibility and compassionate appointments. 13. Marriage is no longer a deciding factor in determining a daughter’s responsibility toward her family. The idea that a daughter becomes part of her husband’s family after marriage and is thereby relieved of her obligations to her own family is outdated. In reality, married daughters often play crucial roles in looking after their parents, financially and emotionally, regardless of their marital status. This shift recognizes that the bond between a daughter and her parents is not severed by marriage, and that her responsibilities to her natal family remain intact. Page 17 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 14. In today’s society, gender-based distinctions in familial duties have gradually faded as women have become equal contributors to the economic, emotional, and social well-being of their families. Daughters, whether married or unmarried, actively participate in supporting their parents and ensuring the smooth functioning of their households, debunking the traditional notion that sons alone are responsible for family care. Moreover, the evolving societal and legal landscape increasingly acknowledges that care giving responsibilities and family support should not be confined to gender or marital status. 15. Now, it is true that the petitioner got married in 2015, but she has continued to care for the needs of her widowed mother. There is no legal prohibition on granting compassionate appointment to a married daughter, and the rejection of her claim, despite her being otherwise eligible, lacks rational justification. 16. Given the facts presented, it is evident that the petitioner’s family faces significant financial hardship. The son of the deceased is unemployed and stays aloof of the struggles of the family. The petitioner has, thus, assumed the primary role in caring for her widowed mother and elderly grandmother, both of whom are wholly dependent on her for their day- to-day needs. The financial strain is further exacerbated by her husband’s limited income from private employment, which fails to meet the basic requirements of the household. 17. Therefore, denying the petitioner compassionate appointment under these circumstances is not only unjust but also defeats the very purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme, which is intended to Page 18 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 provide immediate relief to families in financial distress following the loss of a Government servant. The Petitioner’s dependency on her father prior to his death, combined with the ongoing financial struggles faced by her family, clearly merits reconsideration of her application. V. CONCLUSION: 18. In light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is adjudged that the Opp. Parties erred in non-considering the claim of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment. The impugned order dated 05.06.2018 issued by Opposite Party No.5 is hereby quashed. 19. A direction is issued to the Opp. Parties to reconsider the Petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in light of this decision and the directions provided herein, and the Petitioner’s application shall not be denied solely on the basis of her marital status as a married daughter. 20. The time elapsed during the litigation of this case shall be condoned for the purposes of determining age limit and related eligibility. 21. In view of the foregoing, this Writ Petition is allowed. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th Sept.,2024/ Page 19 of 19