Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and requires financial distress. Married daughters residing with their husbands cannot be treated as dependents on their fathers.

JUDGMENT :

This intra court appeal by the writ petitioner seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge's order dated 19.06.2023 whereby W.P.No.11957/2023 (S-RES) has been dismissed and as a consequence the claim for compassionate appointment is turned down.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even a married daughter is entitled to compassionate appointment on par with a son of an employee, dying in harness, the impugned order running counter to this proposition being unsustainable is liable to be voided.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly being in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge as reflected in the impugned order. Father of the appellant namely, Sri K.Jayashankar who was working as a Branch Manager in LIC died in harness on 28.09.2021 is true. The appellant was admittedly married away long before this. The LIC Recruitment of Staff Instructions vide Clause 21 (ii) exclude a married daughter from being eligible for appointment on compassionate basis. These Instructions having the statutory flavour partake the character of sub ordinate legislation. In the absence of any challenge being laid to their validity, there is a presumption that they are valid and enforceable. The Apex Court decision in a recent decision that is Dhanraj vs. Vikram Singh 2023 SCC Online SC 724 at para 13 has observed as under:-

"13. We are of the view that in absence of any specific challenge to the validity of the statutory provisions, the High Court ought not to have undertaken the exercise of going into the question of repugnancy. We fail to understand the propriety of the observation that the law departments of the State and the Union should have a dialogue to remove the discrepancy. Moreover, the High Court has not proceeded to strike down the relevant provisions which were held to be repugnant to PESA. It only directs that till the discrepancy is removed by the legislature, certain provisions of the 1961 Act and the rules framed thereunder shall be ignored. Such approach by the writ Court is not at all called for. Without holding that the statutory provisions are not constitutionally valid, the High Court could not have issued a direction not to implement the statutory provisions."

4. Learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the Apex Court decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate AIR 2022 SC 5176 to the effect that a married daughter residing in the matrimonial home ordinarily cannot be treated as a dependent on her father. Our scriptures injunct "bharta rakshati yavvane…" literally meaning that it is the duty of husband to provide maintenance to his dependent wife. That is how our legislations too are structured e.g., Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (applicable to all regardless of religions), Sections 24 & 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (applicable to Hindus, in a broad sense of the term), Section 37 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (applicable to Christians), Section 40 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (applicable to Parsis), Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (applicable to all persons regardless of religion and marital status), Sections 36 & 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (applicable to Muslims wives), etc., have been structured. No binding rule or ruling that guarantees right of maintenance to the married daughter residing with the husband qua the father, is brought to our notice.

5. It hardly needs to be stated that the appointment on compassionate ground avails as an exception to the rule of equality enacted in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in Bank of Baroda vs. Baljit Singh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 745 has reiterated that the compassionate appointment is a concession and therefore, cannot be claimed as a matter of right; the job