The exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment eligibility is unconstitutional, violating Article 14, as it lacks rational justification regarding financial dependency.

Judgment :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioner sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to appoint her on compassionate ground under the die-in-harness category, consequent upon the death of her father, Late Kala Chand Das, and for quashing of the reasoned order No. 4L-03/2016 dated 12.07.2016 rejecting her claim. The writ petition further assails the vires of Rule 3(d) of the West Bengal Scheme for Compassionate Appointment notified vide Notification No. 251-Emp. dated 03.12.2013.

2. The petitioner’s father, Late Kala Chand Das, was employed under the Kolkata Metropolitan Water and Sanitation Authority since 01.03.1985 and died in harness on 03.05.2013 leaving behind his wife and three daughters including the petitioner. While the two elder sisters were married and settled, the petitioner, though married, had been residing with and maintaining her mother. Both sisters issued “No Objection” to the petitioner being considered for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner applied on 28.05.2013 for appointment in any suitable post.

3. By communication dated 08.06.2015 (No. 1E-12/2006/535), respondent no.3 required the petitioner to submit an affidavit duly affirmed before a 1st Class Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner complied within the stipulated time, submitting the requisite affidavit and form.

4. As no further steps were taken, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P. No. 10014 (W) of 2016. By order dated 15.06.2016, the Court directed the authorities to communicate a reasoned decision. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities, by order No. 4L-03/2016 dated 12.07.2016, rejected the petitioner’s claim under the 2013 Scheme.

5. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted as follows:-

(i) The petitioner, being the daughter of Late Kala Chand Das (an employee of Kolkata Metropolitan Water and Sanitation Authority who died in harness on 03.05.2013), applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the “died-in-harness” category.

(ii) Upon due enquiry, the respondent authorities initially accepted her claim, called her for interview on 25.06.2015, and were satisfied regarding her financial hardship. However, by order dated 12.07.2016, her claim was rejected solely on the ground that she was a married daughter, in terms of Rule 3(d) of the West Bengal Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, 2013.

(iii) The Rule discriminates between married and unmarried daughters of a deceased employee.

(iv) Such classification is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as there is no intelligible differentia or rational nexus to the object of compassionate appointment.

(v) The object of compassionate appointment is to alleviate sudden financial distress of the dependents of a deceased employee, which cannot be defeated merely on the ground of marital status.

(vi) Reliance is placed on the judgment in Purnima Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in (2017) 4 CHN 362, wherein a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that exclusion of married daughters from the purview of compassionate appointment is unconstitutional. The offending word “unmarried” in the relevant notification was struck down as violative of Article 14.

(vii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Nos. 17638-17639/2018, dismissed the State’s challenge to the above judgment on 23.07.2019, thereby affirming the principle that married daughters cannot be excluded from the zone of consideration for compassionate appointment, provided they establish dependency on the deceased employee and willingness to maintain other dependents.

(viii) In the present case, rejection of the petitioner’s claim only on the ground of being a “married daughter” is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. The impugned order dated 12.07.2016 is liable to be quashed, and the respondents directed to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms