National
Marriage Cannot Disqualify Daughters from Compassionate Appointment, Rules SC
In a landmark judgment advancing gender equality, the Supreme Court has ruled that married daughters cannot be denied compassionate appointments solely because of their marital status. The court held that excluding married daughters from the definition of family is arbitrary, discriminatory, and incompatible with constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment affirming that married daughters are entitled to be considered for compassionate appointments and cannot be excluded from such benefits merely because they are married.
A bench comprising Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe made the observation while setting aside a ruling of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had earlier held that a married daughter was not included within the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
Compassionate appointment is a welfare measure designed to provide immediate financial relief to families facing hardship following the death of a government employee during service or due to premature retirement on medical grounds. The policy allows eligible family members to receive employment assistance to support the household.
The case arose from an appeal filed by a married daughter of a deceased fair price shop dealer whose request for appointment on compassionate grounds had been rejected. She challenged both the High Court’s decision and a 2019 government order that excluded married daughters from the definition of family.
The Supreme Court observed that such exclusion lacks a rational basis and fails to recognize changing social realities. The court emphasized that marriage does not sever a daughter’s relationship with her parental family, nor does it automatically eliminate her dependence or responsibility toward family members.
According to the bench, the purpose of compassionate appointments is to provide immediate support to families facing financial distress. Denying a married daughter the opportunity to seek such relief solely because of her marital status defeats the objective of the scheme and violates constitutional guarantees of equality.
Legal experts have described the verdict as a major step toward gender justice, reinforcing the principle that daughters must be treated equally with sons in matters involving government welfare and employment-related benefits.
The judgment is expected to influence similar policies and service rules across various states and departments, ensuring that marital status is not used as a basis for discrimination in compassionate appointment cases.