Orissa HC: Marriage not a bar to compassionate appointment for daughters

Cuttack: Holding that marriage cannot be a disqualification for daughters seeking compassionate appointment, Orissa high court recently quashed the rejection of a woman’s claim and directed the state govt to provide her an appropriate job within eight weeks.A compliance report must be filed before the HC registrar general within two weeks. Thereafter, “delay would attract additional levy of Rs 500 per day and shall be payable to the daughter, who is in her early 40s. That amount be recovered personally from the erring officials of the department, in accordance with law”, the court said in its Feb 3 order.A division bench of Justices Krishna Shripad Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash set aside the Nov 8, 2011, order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, which had upheld the authorities’ decision to deny her appointment because she got married in 2006 while her application was pending.Her father was a labourer under the chief construction engineer, Pateru irrigation project, from July 15, 1969, to Dec 19, 1999 — more than three decades of “continuous and spotless service”. He died in harness on Dec 20, 1999, leaving behind his wife and daughter. With her mother’s consent, she applied for compassionate appointment on Aug 21, 2000.Though the engineer-in-chief recommended her case in 2008 and 2009, the appointment was later turned down solely on the ground of her marriage.

Challenging it, she had filed a petition in HC on Dec 13, 2011.Stressing constitutional equality, the bench observed, “For the purpose of compassionate appointment, women, i.e., daughters constitute one homogenous class and that excluding the married daughters would create an artificial class within the class and therefore, would fall foul of doctrine of equality...”It added, “If marriage is not a disability for sons of a deceased employee to stake claim for compassionate appointment, it cannot be a disability for daughters too.”Criticising the authorities, the bench said the rejection was “absolutely obnoxious, to say the least”, adding that an “employee cannot endlessly wait for the authorities to take the decision on the claim for compassionate appointment, inasmuch as ageing being an inevitable consequence of run of the time; cannot be halted merely because the authorities are sleepy & tardy”.“What an enormity of mindlessness, the govt and its functionaries conduct the public affairs with, would bewilder any sensible mind,” the bench added.