'Marriage Doesn't Break Daughter's Bond With Her Parents': Tripura High Court On Their Exclusion From Die-In-Harness Scheme
Such a scheme violates Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution, the Court held.
The Tripura High Court has held that making 'married daughters' ineligible for availing benefits under the die-in-harness scheme of the State Government is discriminatory and violates Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution. While granting relief to the respondents (the aggrieved married daughters), the Division Bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice...
The Tripura High Court has held that making 'married daughters' ineligible for availing benefits under the die-in-harness scheme of the State Government is discriminatory and violates Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution.
While granting relief to the respondents (the aggrieved married daughters), the Division Bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay held,
"Marriage does not break the bond between a daughter and her parents as it does not do between a son and his parents. A crisis in the family of her parents equally worries a married daughter. As such, there is no rationale behind exclusion of a married daughter from the scheme. Therefore, a die-in-harness policy inasmuch as it operates as a disqualification in the case of a married woman, as against a married man must be held to be discriminatory and such policy, tested on the touchstone of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution, cannot be held to be valid."
Background:
All the writ appeals herein involved similar questions pertaining to exclusion of married daughters from the die-in-harness scheme of the State Government. Previously, a Single Judge Bench of the Court had declared exclusion of married daughters from the benefits of the scheme as unconstitutional. Therefore, the appellants (the State authorities) had filed these appeals to challenge the decision of the Single Judge.
Contentions on behalf of the appellants:
The appellants argued that married daughters were not entitled to compassionate appointment under die-in-harness scheme under the concerned notifications. It was contended that the very object of the die-in-harness scheme is to extend financial benefits to the dependent family members of a deceased government servant either by providing employment to an eligible member of such family on compassionate ground or by providing financial assistance to the family.
The scheme does not include a 'married daughter' because under no circumstances, a married daughter can be treated as a dependent family member of a deceased government employee, the State ade.
It was further submitted that as per law laid down by the Apex Court in various judicial pronouncements, no aspirant can claim a statutory right to compassionate appointment. Appointment on compassionate ground can only be made in terms of state's policy prevailing on the date of consideration of an application for job on compassionate ground and such appointment can be made only on fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per the policy.
To buttress this contention, the State counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 617 and subsequent decision in Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 704.
Contentions on behalf of the respondents:
The respondents contended that complete exclusion of the married daughters from the purview of compassionate appointment under die-in-harness scheme is an impermissible discrimination and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Several judgments from various High Courts were cited.
Judgment:
Perusing the judgments placed on record, the Court held,
"From the decisions rendered on this issue by various High Courts across the country in the judgments cited to Supra, it would appear that the different High Courts have unanimously viewed that complete exclusion of married daughters from the purview of the scheme of compassionate appointment is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of the equality clauses of the Constitution enshrined in Articles 14 to 16."
The Court distinguished the facts and points of law decided by the Supreme Court in N.C. Santhosh (supra) and Director of Treasuries in Karnataka (supra). Thus, it held that the facts and issues being different, the case in hand was not covered by the said decisions. Hence, it rejected the contentions of the State which are made placing reliance upon these two decisions.
The Court further observed that the very object of die-in-harness scheme is to provide urgent relief to mitigate the hardships arising out of the death of the earning member of the family. Numerous situations can be contemplated where there may be none other than the married daughter to support the family of the deceased Government servant. Such a situation having arisen, object of the die-in-harness scheme to relieve the family of the deceased Government servant of emergent financial crisis by providing compassionate appointment to an eligible member would be frustrated if the married daughter, who is otherwise eligible for such appointment, is kept beyond the purview of the scheme only on the basis of her marital status.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit. Again, it directed the appellants to freshly consider the applications made by the respondents and to dispose them of on merit within a period of three months.
Case Title: The State of Tripura & Ors. v. Smt. Debashri Chakraborty and other connected matters
Case No.: WA No. 80 of 2020 & other connected appeals
Date of Judgment: 8th February 2022
Coram: Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tri) 3