[Compassionate Appointment] Married Daughters Can't Be Denied Benefit Under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme: Orissa High Court

"…this court is of the view that marriage by itself is not a disqualification and impugned policy of the State Government barring and prohibiting the consideration of the 'married' daughter from seeking appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, merely on the ground of marriage, is plainly arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees, as envisaged in Articles 14, 15, and 16(2) of the Constitution of India."

Factual Background:

The father of the petitioner died in harness on 23.02.2001, while working as a primary school teacher, leaving behind his wife and two daughters. The petitioner is the elder daughter, who was married by then. Upon the death of her father, she applied for appointment to the post of Class-III Non-teaching staffs under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. On the receipt of the application form, the case of the Petitioner was recommended for appointment by the Inspector of Schools.

However, the lesser deserving candidates were appointed subsequently and the case of the petitioner was overlooked for appointment under the Scheme. Being aggrieved by the same, she approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, which disposed her case directing the authorities to consider her application. However, the Inspector of Schools rejected her representation for appointment to the said post only on the ground that she was 'married'.

Hence, she impugned the aforesaid rejection order of the Inspector of Schools through this writ petition.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate for the petitioner contended that the Inspector of Schools failed to apply his mind in the matter as no Government Circular prohibits married daughters of a deceased person, in absence of a son, from recruitment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Therefore, the Inspector of Schools on wrong appreciation of Government Circular passed the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner and the same deserves to be quashed forthwith.

Contentions of the Respondents:

However, the respondents argued that the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme provides for extending employment to 'unmarried daughters' only. Therefore, marriage of the petitioner disqualified her from seeking employment under the scheme. They also contended that instead of the petitioner, her younger sister who is unmarried may apply for the requisite benefit under the scheme.

Court's Decision:

The Court relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, wherein it was held that the object of compassionate appointment is to help the family tied over the crisis that befalls them on the circumstance, so that the family will not be put to jeopardy by being driven to impecunious conditions and condemned by penury.

Justice Panigrahi further cited observations from landmark verdict of the Supreme Court in C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India. He finally placed reliance on the following observations made by the Orissa High Court in Kshirabadi Bala Behera v. Orissa Administrative Tribunal:

"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 its 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 retrograde step of State Government as welfare State, on which stamp of approval cannot be made by this Court."

Accordingly, the Court held that refusal to grant benefit to the 'married' daughter for consideration of compassionate appointment is unreasonable and void. Hence, the impugned order of the Inspector of Schools was set aside. Also, the opposite parties were directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for being appointed under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the fact that her father died on 23.02.2001 and her application was rejected on 08.04.2008, after seven years.

Case Title: Basanti Nayak v. State of Orissa & Ors.

Case No.: WPC (OAC) No. 2669 of 2008

Order Dated: 27^th October 2022

Coram: Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Biplaba Mohanty, Standing Counsel for SC and ME Deptt. & Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, Advocate

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 150