Compassionate appointments: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* ‘Illegitimate’ son entitled to compassionate job appointment/ HC: */

2026-09-09T20:05:07Z

‎‘Illegitimate’ son entitled to compassionate job appointment/ HC:

Jyoti: /* Marriage does not debar compassionate appointment: HC */

2026-09-09T20:04:29Z

‎Marriage does not debar compassionate appointment: HC

Jyoti: /* Married daughter is entitled: SC */

2026-09-09T20:02:50Z

‎Married daughter is entitled: SC

Jyoti: /* Married daughters: cannot be denied: HC */

2026-07-28T20:54:43Z

‎Married daughters: cannot be denied: HC

Pdewan: /* Married daughters: cannot be denied: HC */

2025-08-26T12:49:29Z

‎Married daughters: cannot be denied: HC

Jyoti: /* Eligibility */

2025-08-21T17:45:13Z

‎Eligibility

Jyoti: /* ‘Illegitimate’ son entitled to compassionate job appointment/ HC: */

2024-12-22T15:47:26Z

‎‘Illegitimate’ son entitled to compassionate job appointment/ HC:

Jyoti: /* Married daughters: cannot be denied: HC */

2024-03-05T22:20:08Z

‎Married daughters: cannot be denied: HC

Jyoti: /* ‘Illegitimate’ son entitled to compassionate job appointment/ HC: */

2024-03-05T22:19:38Z

‎‘Illegitimate’ son entitled to compassionate job appointment/ HC:

Jyoti: /* Stepsons are entitled to compassionate appointment: HC */

2023-10-12T14:46:55Z

‎Stepsons are entitled to compassionate appointment: HC

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:05, 9 September 2026
Line 99:		Line 99:

	In 2015, SECL rejected Vikrant’s claim for dependent employment. His mother filed a writ petition, seeking a job for him. The court disposed of the petition. Vikrant then moved HC, challenging SECL’s rejection of his application.		In 2015, SECL rejected Vikrant’s claim for dependent employment. His mother filed a writ petition, seeking a job for him. The court disposed of the petition. Vikrant then moved HC, challenging SECL’s rejection of his application.
		+
		+	==Marriage does not debar compassionate appointment: HC==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=/ccidist-ws/toi/toidelhibs_delhi/issues/85099/OPS/GDVL4QPI0.1+GDVL4QTNR.1.html&channel=TOI August 31, 2026: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Raipur: Denying compassionate appointment to a married daughter while granting it to a married son is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional, Chhattisgarh HC has ruled, setting aside a single-bench order on July 30 and directing Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank to appoint two women within 90 days, reports Partha Behera.
		+
		+	“The scheme does not create distinction between a married son and a married daughter. Once the policy itself uses the expression ‘wholly dependent son’ and ‘wholly dependent daughter’ without qualifying the latter by ‘unmarried’, the authorities cannot import disqualification which the scheme itself does not contemplate,” division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal has held. The ruling came on two writ appeals by Sheena David and Ankita Mishra, whose fathers died in service and their compassionate appointments were rejected because they were married.
		+
		+	The bank’s argument that under prevailing social practices, a married son maintains the family of deceased employee’s family, whereas a married daughter shifts to her matrimonial home was rejected. HC said that constitutional guarantees of equality do not permit stereotypical social assumptions to guide administrative decisions.

	[[Category:India\|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA		[[Category:India\|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA

@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 Chanda challenged the order before a single-judge HC bench, which accepted her contention that she could not be excluded from the benefit. Her writ petition was, however, dismissed, taking into account that Chanda could not furnish any evidence of her husband’s unemployment and her financial dependence on her parents. Allowing a special appeal, HC’s division bench, in its Aug 12 order, set aside the single judge’s order on May 15, 2025, and remitted the matter to Deoria DBEO.
-“The scheme does not create distinction between a married son and a married daughter. Once the policy itself uses the expression ‘wholly dependent son’ and ‘wholly dependent daughter’ without qualifying the latter by ‘unmarried’, the authorities cannot import disqualification which the scheme itself does not contemplate,” division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal has held. The ruling came on two writ appeals by Sheena David and Ankita Mishra, whose fathers died in service and their compassionate appointments were rejected because they were married.
+[[Category:India|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA
+COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA]]
-The bank’s argument that under prevailing social practices, a married son maintains the family of deceased employee’s family, whereas a married daughter shifts to her matrimonial home was rejected. HC said that constitutional guarantees of equality do not permit stereotypical social assumptions to guide administrative decisions.
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA
 ==Married daughter is entitled: SC==

@@ Line 135: / Line 135: @@
 Chanda challenged the order before a single-judge HC bench, which accepted her contention that she could not be excluded from the benefit. Her writ petition was, however, dismissed, taking into account that Chanda could not furnish any evidence of her husband’s unemployment and her financial dependence on her parents. Allowing a special appeal, HC’s division bench, in its Aug 12 order, set aside the single judge’s order on May 15, 2025, and remitted the matter to Deoria DBEO.
 ==Married daughter is entitled: SC==
@@ Line 156: / Line 165: @@
 “A blanket exclusion of all married daughters cannot be justified on ... speculative assumption ... Constitutional adjudication cannot be founded on presumptions that are overbroad and disconnected from lived realities,” the bench said.
 [[Category:India|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
-Cuttack:A married daughter cannot be barred from a job meant to be provided on compassionate grounds, Orissa high court has ruled, junking as “discriminatory” a state circular that kept women out of such employment over her marital status.
+Cuttack: A married daughter cannot be barred from a job meant to be provided on compassionate grounds, Orissa high court has ruled, junking as “discriminatory” a state circular that kept women out of such employment over her marital status.
  A single-judge bench of Justice SK Panigrahi ordered Seemarani Pandab to be considered afresh for the job in place of her father who had died while serving as a physical education teacher (PET) in a Bhadrak govt school.
@@ Line 124: / Line 125: @@
  “Since about 11 years have passed and many years have been spent in litigation, in the interest of justice and fair play, the age of the petitioner shall not be a factor in considering her for a suitable job,” HC said.
-[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=26_08_2025_011_013_cap_TOI Allahabad high court: Married daughter not barred from appointment on compassionate grounds / ''The Times of India'' 26 Aug. 25]
+===Married daughter not barred from appointment on compassionate grounds: HC===
 [[Category:India|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA

@@ Line 124: / Line 124: @@
  “Since about 11 years have passed and many years have been spent in litigation, in the interest of justice and fair play, the age of the petitioner shall not be a factor in considering her for a suitable job,” HC said.
-[[Category:India|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA
-COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA
+[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=26_08_2025_011_013_cap_TOI Allahabad high court: Married daughter not barred from appointment on compassionate grounds / ''The Times of India'' 26 Aug. 25]
-COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Name|ALPHABETCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA
-COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA]]
 [[Category:India|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 =Eligibility=
 ==Dependent, married daughters covered by dying in harness rule: HC==
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=If-dependent-married-girls-eligible-for-jobs-05122015023008 ''The Times of India''], Dec 05 2015
@@ Line 146: / Line 157: @@
  The HC further said no material was placed on record to show the appellant was dependent on the income of her brother, nor was there any evidence of the deceased’s family being in financial distress that would justify her claim.
 [[Category:India|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA]]
-== ‘Illegitimate’ son entitled to compassionate job appointment/ HC:==
+==‘Illegitimate’ son entitled to compassionate job appointment/ HC:==
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=14_03_2022_010_015_cap_TOI  March 14, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 The HC said a policy “cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendant”. TNN
 ==Married daughters: cannot be denied: HC==

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 ==Married daughters: cannot be denied: HC==
-[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=02_03_2024_016_009_cap_TOI Lalmohan Patnaik TNN, February 29, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
+[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=02_03_2024_016_009_cap_TOI Lalmohan Patnaik TNN, March 2, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
  “Since about 11 years have passed and many years have been spent in litigation, in the interest of justice and fair play, the age of the petitioner shall not be a factor in considering her for a suitable job,” HC said.
 [[Category:India|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 5 March 2024
Line 76:		Line 76:

	The HC said a policy “cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendant”. TNN		The HC said a policy “cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendant”. TNN
		+
		+	==Married daughters: cannot be denied: HC==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=02_03_2024_016_009_cap_TOI Lalmohan Patnaik TNN, February 29, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	Cuttack:A married daughter cannot be barred from a job meant to be provided on compassionate grounds, Orissa high court has ruled, junking as “discriminatory” a state circular that kept women out of such employment over her marital status.
		+	A single-judge bench of Justice SK Panigrahi ordered Seemarani Pandab to be considered afresh for the job in place of her father who had died while serving as a physical education teacher (PET) in a Bhadrak govt school.
		+
		+	Justice SK Panigrahi also directed Odisha authorities to consider Pandab’s applicat ion from the day it was first made in 2013 and not let her current age be an inhibiting factor. Pandab was denied the job citing 2010 govt circular which prohibited married daughters from getting benefits of compassionate recruitment.
		+
		+	“A policy of disqualifying a married daughter and excluding her from consideration, apart from being arbitrary and discriminating, is a retrograde step of state govt as welfare state, on which stamp of approval cannot be given by this court,” Justice Panigrahi said in his Feb 27 judgment.
		+
		+	The judge maintained that the yardstick for compassionate appointment should be the dependency of dependants on the deceased govt servant, and marital status should not be an impediment.
		+
		+	Justice Panigrahi specified that such a bar was “plainly arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees, as envisaged in Articles 14, 15, and 16(2) of the Constitution”, which pertain to equality and equal opportunity.
		+
		+	“Since about 11 years have passed and many years have been spent in litigation, in the interest of justice and fair play, the age of the petitioner shall not be a factor in considering her for a suitable job,” HC said.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA
		+	COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA
		+	COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Name\|ALPHABETCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA
		+	COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA]]

	==Stepsons are entitled to compassionate appointment: HC==		==Stepsons are entitled to compassionate appointment: HC==

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:46, 12 October 2023
Line 87:		Line 87:

	The advocate for the state of West Bengal argued that according to the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, an adopted son of a government employee would come under the meaning of ‘son’. The court dismissed this line of argument, saying, “Compassionate appointment is not a hereditary right” so recourse to the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act was baseless.		The advocate for the state of West Bengal argued that according to the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, an adopted son of a government employee would come under the meaning of ‘son’. The court dismissed this line of argument, saying, “Compassionate appointment is not a hereditary right” so recourse to the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act was baseless.
		+
		+	==Sisters not eligible==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=14_09_2023_026_010_cap_TOI Sep 15, 2023: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Bengaluru : Asister does not figure in the definition of “family” under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1999, the Karnataka HC noted recently, dismissing the claim of a woman who sought “compassionate appointment” in place of her brother who had died while on duty in 2016.
		+
		+	A division bench comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit pointed out that rule 2(1) (b) stipulates that in case of a deceased male government servant, his widow, son or daughter, who are dependent and are living with him, will be considered family members.
		+
		+	The HC further said no material was placed on record to show the appellant was dependent on the income of her brother, nor was there any evidence of the deceased’s family being in financial distress that would justify her claim.

	[[Category:India\|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA		[[Category:India\|CCOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIACOMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS: INDIA