Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court

"Even otherwise, married daughter cannot be excluded only on the ground that she is married daughter which is manifestly arbitrary and contrary to law." Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a married daughter cannot be disqualified from seeking compassionate appointment merely on the assumption that marriage extinguishes her dependency on her parental family.

A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal observed that excluding a daughter solely on the ground of her marital status is manifestly arbitrary and perpetuates constitutionally impermissible gender stereotypes.

The petitioner’s father, who served as a Deputy Manager at the Bank of Maharashtra in Raipur, died in harness. Following his demise, the petitioner, being his sole married daughter, applied for compassionate appointment. The respondent Bank rejected her application on October 27, 2026, asserting that she was dependent on her husband and could therefore not be considered a dependent family member of her deceased father.

The primary question before the court was whether a married daughter is entirely excluded from the definition of a "dependent family member" for the purpose of compassionate appointment. The court was also called upon to determine whether the rejection of the petitioner's application solely on the basis of her marital status violated the constitutional mandate of equality.

No Express Exclusion In Bank's Policy

Examining the compassionate appointment policy of the respondent Bank, the court noted that the scheme explicitly included a "wholly dependent daughter" within the definition of a dependent family member. The bench highlighted that there was absolutely no express clause within the policy that excluded a married daughter from this definition. The court noted that the petitioner had clearly stated in her application that she was dependent on her late father due to personal economic reasons and was actively helping her widowed mother.

Assumption Of Non-Dependency Merely On Marriage Is Flawed

The court strongly deprecated the Bank's automatic assumption that a daughter's marriage instantly severs her financial dependency on her natal family. The bench pointed out the total absence of any evidence on record to prove that the petitioner was not dependent on her father. It observed that the respondent Bank had erroneously presumed that simply because the petitioner was married, her dependency automatically and exclusively shifted to her husband.

Reliance On Supreme Court Precedent

To fortify its reasoning, the High Court placed extensive reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. and others. The bench reproduced crucial portions of the apex court's ruling which firmly established that excluding a married daughter from the definition of a family cannot be legally sustained. The court reiterated that marital status bears no rational nexus to the core objective of providing immediate financial succour to the deceased employee's family.

Marriage Does Not Extinguish Parental Bond

Echoing the constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court, Justice Agrawal emphasised that assuming a daughter ceases to be a member of her parental family upon marriage is constitutionally impermissible. The bench affirmed that marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume an absolute absence of dependency. The court stressed that dependency is a factual question that cannot be conclusively determined by looking at marital status alone.

Exclusion On Marital Status Is Manifestly Arbitrary

Applying these principles to the present dispute, the court found the Bank's decision to be fundamentally flawed and contrary to the established legal framework. The bench categorically ruled that a blanket exclusion based purely on marital status and gender stereotypes violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India. The court observed that it is quite vivid that the policy does not expressly exclude a married daughter, yet the impugned order had unjustly barred the petitioner.

"The distinction is founded upon a gender-based stereotype that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family and loses all ties with her natal family. Such a presumption is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality."

Concluding the proceedings, the High Court quashed the impugned rejection order passed by the respondent Bank. The court directed the Bank to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment afresh within 30 days, strictly in light of the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The writ petition was allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.

Date of Decision: 16 July 2026