In a significant ruling aimed at ensuring equal treatment under the law, the Supreme Court has held that married daughters cannot be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointments solely on the basis of their marital status.
The apex court observed that excluding married daughters from the definition of "family" for compassionate appointment purposes is arbitrary, unjustified, and constitutionally unsustainable. The ruling reinforces the principle that marriage does not sever a daughter's relationship with her parental family or diminish her eligibility for benefits intended to support dependents facing financial hardship.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad High Court Order
A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe delivered the judgment while hearing an appeal filed by a married woman whose claim for appointment on compassionate grounds had been rejected.
The court set aside an earlier order of the Allahabad High Court, which had held that a married daughter was not included within the definition of family for the purpose of compassionate appointment under the relevant government policy.
Challenge to Government Order
The case arose after the appellant challenged a 2019 government order that excluded married daughters from the definition of family.
The woman sought appointment as a fair price shop dealer following the death of her father. However, her application was rejected on the ground that married daughters were not considered eligible dependents under the existing policy framework.
The Supreme Court examined the validity of the exclusion and found it inconsistent with constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Court Emphasizes Purpose of Compassionate Appointment
The court noted that the objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to families that lose their primary earning member.
According to the bench, eligibility should be determined by the existence of dependency and financial hardship rather than by marital status.
The judges observed that excluding married daughters defeats the very purpose of welfare measures designed to support bereaved families facing economic distress.
Key Observations by the Court
The Supreme Court held that:
- Marriage cannot be a valid ground for denying compassionate appointment.
- Married daughters remain part of the family for the purpose of welfare benefits.
- The exclusion lacked a reasonable basis and violated constitutional guarantees.
- Financial dependency and hardship should be the primary considerations in such cases.
