Exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment based on marital status alone is unconstitutional and violative of the right to equality.

JUDGMENT

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. Appellant/writ petitioner has challenged the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 15th September, 2020 in this appeal. The impugned order dated 15th September, 2020 was delivered by the Hon’ble Single Judge in WPA No. 6785 (W) of 2020 (Payel Bhattacharya vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation &Ors.). Appellant’s prayer in the said writ petition was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner has come up before this court to challenge the impugned judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge on the grounds argued on her behalf by Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Learned Advocate. It is submitted at the outset that appellant’s father died while serving the respondent/Corporation. The said person having been the sole bread earner of the family, his death has left the family at a very hapless and vulnerable condition. This would evince a dire necessity for the family to be supported, more so economically, for its sustenance and thus the appellant’s prayer for compassionate appointment was unquestionably justified.

3. It is further submitted that she possesses de-rigueur qualification for appointment with the respondent/Corporation.

4. To add to the grounds favourable for the appellant, Mr.Chakraborty has further submitted that so far as the daughter of the deceased employees are concerned, like the appellant in this case, the applicable rules have been changed to include daughters in the array of dependent legal heirs of such an employee irrespective of their marital status, as regards the appointment on compassionate ground. On this he has relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of this court reported in 2017 (4) CHN (CAL) 362 (Arpita Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal). It is submitted that in the said judgment the Court has revisited the existent law at that point of time and after appreciation of the practical and legal infirmities therein, the Court has been pleased to change the law to the effect that language of the concerned rules enumerating “unmarried daughter” should be replaced with the word “daughter”, without being qualified with any specification as to the marital status of the person. The reason as to why this argument has been advanced is that the first application of the appellant was rejected by the respondent/Corporation on the ground of her being married at that point of time, and the rules prevalent then would not allow a married daughter to be accredited as a dependent of the deceased employee to be entitled for appointed on compassionate ground after untimely death of her father.

5. Mr. Chakraborty would also say that the Courts of the country have time and again held as to the requirement and importance of immediate appointment of the dependent of a deceased employee, even to the extent that in an appropriate case the court shall not look into the possibility of probable litigation blast in case it finds that such a valuable right of the citizen touching his viands and very survival is about to be taken away by any inaction of the authorities. On this he has relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 9 SCC 625 (Coal India Limited and Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra).

6. Mr. Chakraborty has also stressed upon the point that it has been a well spelt out policy set in place by the Courts through its verdicts, that having considered the gravity of the situation where the life of the dependents of a deceased employee is wrecked with the very basic question of sustenance, the authorities have been directed for creation of the supernumerary post in order to effect compassionate appointment of the dependent of the deceased employee. On this Mr.Chakraborty has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468 (Sushma Gosain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.)

7. Mr.Chakraborty has further submitted that at the time when the appellant has preferred her second application before the authorities for com