Orissa High Court Strikes Down Marriage as Disqualification for Daughters in Compassionate Appointments
In a landmark judgment, the Orissa High Court has emphatically ruled that marriage cannot serve as a disqualification for daughters seeking compassionate appointments. The court recently quashed the rejection of a woman's claim and directed the state government to provide her with an appropriate job within eight weeks, marking a significant victory for gender equality in employment practices.
Court Orders Strict Compliance with Penalties for Delay
The division bench, comprising Justices Krishna Shripad Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash, issued a firm order on February 3, mandating that a compliance report be filed before the High Court registrar general within two weeks. The court warned that any delay beyond this period would attract an additional levy of Rs 500 per day, payable to the daughter, who is in her early 40s. Notably, this amount is to be recovered personally from the erring officials of the department, in accordance with the law, ensuring accountability for bureaucratic lapses.
Background of the Case and Legal Battle
The case dates back to the death of the woman's father, a laborer under the chief construction engineer of the Pateru irrigation project. He served from July 15, 1969, to December 19, 1999, completing more than three decades of continuous and spotless service before passing away in harness on December 20, 1999. He left behind his wife and daughter, who, with her mother's consent, applied for compassionate appointment on August 21, 2000.
Despite the engineer-in-chief recommending her case in 2008 and 2009, the appointment was later denied solely on the ground of her marriage in 2006 while her application was pending. The Odisha Administrative Tribunal upheld this decision on November 8, 2011, prompting the woman to challenge it in the High Court on December 13, 2011.
Court's Emphasis on Constitutional Equality
In its ruling, the bench stressed the principles of constitutional equality, observing that for the purpose of compassionate appointment, women, specifically daughters, constitute one homogeneous class. The court stated that excluding married daughters would create an artificial class within the class, thereby violating the 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."
Criticism of Authorities and Call for Timely Action
The bench did not mince words in criticizing the authorities, describing the rejection as "absolutely obnoxious, to say the least." It highlighted that an employee cannot endlessly wait for authorities to decide on a claim for compassionate appointment, noting that ageing is an inevitable consequence of time and cannot be halted merely because the authorities are sleepy and tardy. The bench further remarked, "What an enormity of mindlessness, the government and its functionaries conduct the public affairs with, would bewilder any sensible mind."
This ruling underscores the court's commitment to ensuring fair treatment and eliminating discriminatory practices in government employment, setting a precedent for future cases involving compassionate appointments for daughters.
