5 December 2022


High Court of Karnataka

Smt. Bhuvaneshwari V.Puranik vs The State Of Karnataka




Married daughters are eligible to seeking benefit of compassionate appointment

Petitioner in present petition has challenged the order denying appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father on the score that she is "a married daughter". Petitioner is the daughter of late Ashok Adiveppa Madivalar who was working as Secretary in the office of the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee ('APMC') and died in harness.

On the death of the sole breadwinner of the family, Petitioner, the daughter of the deceased employee, submitted a representation on 8th November, 2016 for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. In reply to the request of the Petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the third Respondent Joint Director (Administration), Department of Agriculture Marketing issued an endorsement rejecting the request on the ground that, the Rules obtaining does not entitle the Petitioner to seek an appointment on compassionate grounds on the score that, she is the daughter of the deceased employee who is married.

The Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 that is called in question and has fallen for interpretation is discriminatory as the words "unmarried" permeates through the entire fabric of Rule 2 and 3 to deny appointment to a married daughter. If the Rule is left as it is, in view of my preceding analysis, would create discrimination on the basis of gender. If the marital status of a son does not make any difference in law to his entitlement for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the marital status of a daughter should make no difference, as the married daughter does not cease to be a part of the family and law cannot make an assumption that married sons alone continue to be the part of the family.

Therefore, the Rule which becomes violative of Articles 14, 15 of Constitution of India, 1950 on its interpretation will have to be struck down as unconstitutional as excluding the daughters purely on the basis of marriage will constitute an impermissible discrimination which is invidious and be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

The exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of expression 'family' in Rule 2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Rules, 1996 is illegal and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The word "unmarried" in Rule 2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Rules, 1996 struck down. In consequence whereof, the Respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Petition allowed.

Tags : Married daughters Compassionate appointment Entitlement

Share :