Orissa High Court Condemns Gender Discrimination in Compassionate Appointments
The Orissa High Court has delivered a landmark judgment, strongly criticizing the "mindless" denial of a compassionate government job to a married daughter of a deceased employee. In a powerful ruling, the court emphasized that marriage cannot be a barrier for daughters when it is not one for sons, declaring such exclusion unconstitutional.
Court's Strong Stance on Equality
A division bench comprising Justice Krishna Shripad Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, in their February 3 order, stated unequivocally: "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." The bench warned that any contrary notion would offend fundamental societal institutions like family and marriage.
The court further noted that excluding married daughters creates an artificial classification that violates the doctrine of equality enshrined in the Constitution. Quoting former US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the bench highlighted the need to end gender-based role delineation, asserting that women should be welcomed in all fields as enthusiastically as men.
Background of the Case
The petitioner's father had served as an employee under the Chief Construction Engineer of the Pateru Irrigation Project for three decades, from 1969 until his death in 1999. Following his passing, the daughter applied for compassionate appointment in 2000. Initially, both the engineer-in-chief and the state government approved her appointment in principle.
However, authorities later denied her employment solely because she married in 2006, during the pendency of her request. The state argued that under the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, a married daughter does not qualify as a bereaved family member eligible for such appointments.
Court's Legal Reasoning
The High Court systematically dismantled the state's arguments, making several key observations:
- The petitioner's claim, made timely in 2000, was rejected only due to her 2006 marriage. The court noted that claimants cannot endlessly wait for authorities to decide while life events like marriage occur.
- The Odisha Civil Service Rules do not specify that marriage automatically disqualifies an otherwise eligible claimant.
- The right to marry is a fundamental aspect of the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- The Constitution's framers ensured gender neutrality through Articles 14, 15, and 16.
- For compassionate appointments, daughters constitute one homogeneous class. Excluding married daughters creates an "artificial class within a class" violating constitutional equality.
The court expressed astonishment at the "enormity of mindlessness" displayed by government functionaries, particularly since authorities had approved the appointment proposal in 2010 despite knowing about the marriage.
Court's Directives and Penalties
The High Court issued clear directives:
- Quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's compassionate appointment claim.
- Directed state authorities to grant her compassionate appointment within eight weeks.
- Imposed a penalty of Rs 500 per day for any delay, payable to the petitioner.
- Ordered that penalty amounts be recovered personally from erring officials according to law.
The judgment reinforces that constitutional principles of equality must prevail over discriminatory practices, ensuring that daughters receive equal treatment in compassionate appointments regardless of marital status.
