National
Supreme Court Reinforces Gender Equality in Compassionate Appointment Policy
In a landmark judgment promoting gender equality, the Supreme Court has ruled that married daughters cannot be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointments. The court held that denying married daughters the status of family members for such benefits is arbitrary, discriminatory, and constitutionally unsustainable.
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling affirming that married daughters are entitled to be considered for compassionate appointments and cannot be excluded solely on the basis of their marital status.
A bench comprising Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe made the observation while setting aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court that had held that married daughters did not fall within the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate appointments.
Compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate financial relief to families of government employees or eligible individuals who die while in service or retire prematurely due to medical reasons. The policy aims to support dependents facing sudden economic hardship.
The case before the Supreme Court involved a married daughter of a deceased fair price shop dealer who challenged the rejection of her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. She also questioned a 2019 government order that excluded married daughters from the definition of family for such appointments.
The apex court held that the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of family was manifestly arbitrary, lacked a reasonable basis, and violated constitutional principles of equality. The judges emphasized that marriage does not sever a daughter’s relationship with her parental family, nor does it automatically remove her from the category of dependents who may require support after the death of a family member.
The court observed that the primary objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate assistance to families facing financial distress. Therefore, denying eligibility solely on the basis of marital status defeats the very purpose of the scheme.
Legal experts view the judgment as a progressive step toward ensuring equal treatment of daughters and sons under welfare policies. The ruling is expected to have broader implications for similar government schemes and service rules across the country that continue to differentiate between married and unmarried daughters.