Marital Status No Bar, But Dependency is the Gatekeeper: Calcutta High Court on Married Daughter’s Claim for Compassionate Appointment

“Although marital status does not matter, what matters is whether the married daughter was part of the deceased’s family and dependent on his income” —  In a decision that blends progressive interpretation with strict evidentiary demands, the Calcutta High  held that a married daughter’s marital status cannot be a ground to deny her consideration for compassionate appointment under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). However, the Court made it clear that “establishing ‘dependency’ is a condition precedent” for claiming such benefit.

The Division Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Smita Das De delivered the ruling in Dipali Mitra & Others v. Coal India Limited & Others, an intra-court appeal challenging a Single Judge’s order which had upheld the rejection of compassionate appointment claims by the widow, married daughter, and son-in-law of a deceased Eastern Coalfields Limited employee.

The late Shib Das Mitra died in harness on 26 May 2010, leaving behind his widow, married daughter, son-in-law, and a son living abroad. The widow was over 45 years old — making her eligible only for monetary compensation under Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA — while the son expressed no interest in employment. The married daughter and her husband applied for compassionate appointment, asserting dependency on the deceased.

Their claim was rejected by ECL in a “reasoned order” dated 21 February 2018, citing lack of dependency proof and discrepancies in residential addresses. A Single Judge later struck down Clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA, which had excluded married daughters, but declined to grant relief for want of evidence showing dependency.

The appellants argued that they had been part of the deceased’s household and that “it hardly matters whether the daughter is married or unmarried because married daughter can also be part of deceased’s family and a dependent on his income.” They urged the Court to follow earlier rulings such as Sukumoni Hembram and the Supreme Court’s decision in Subhadra, which had affirmed the rights of female dependents.

The Division Bench did not accept the plea. Referring to its own prior order in WP 306 of 2015, the Court observed:

“It does not matter whether a daughter is married or unmarried, but if a married daughter was part of the deceased’s family and was dependent on his income for her livelihood, she had to be taken as his dependent… Thus, although marital status does not matter, what matters is whether the married daughter was part of deceased’s family and was dependent on the income of deceased for livelihood.”

The judges turned to the NCWA text, noting that even after Clause 9.3.3 was declared unconstitutional, “all these provisions… make it clear like cloudless sky that the intention was to provide employment/compensation to ‘dependents’.” They stressed that “petitioners were required to establish that they were dependents of the deceased employee on the date of his death.”

On the facts, the Court found that the married daughter and son-in-law “could not furnish any proof regarding their dependency on the deceased employee by furnishing any documentary evidence.” It noted that address documents showed them living separately and that “they deliberately suppressed contemporaneous EPIC… and arranged new documents recently… Hence, it is proved that… the son-in-law & his wife were living separately and not with the family of the deceased employee.”

Distinguishing the precedents cited, the Bench remarked:

“In Sukumoni Hembram and Subhadra, the petitioners were admittedly dependent on the deceased employees… At the cost of repetition… petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that they were dependents of deceased at the time of his death.”

Quoting the Full Bench in State of West Bengal v. Purnima Das, the Court reiterated:

“Compassionate appointment cannot be offered to anyone in the family who was not dependent on the earnings of the employee… A person dependent would be one who for his survival was entirely dependent on the earnings of the Government employee.”

Upholding the Single Judge’s decision, the Division Bench said: “Although the petitioner no. 2 the married daughter could not have been deprived… because of marital status only, it could not be established that she or her husband were dependent on the income of the deceased… In absence thereof, no fault can be found in the rejection order dated 21.02.2018.”

The only relief granted was to the widow. The Court directed that if she applies within thirty days, “the said authority shall grant the monetary compensation… with arrears within 90 days therefrom” and that she “shall continue to get the monetary compensation as per NCWA till her survival.”

The appeal was accordingly partly allowed, with no order as to costs.

Date of Decision: 28 July 2025