The denial of compassionate appointment based solely on marital status is arbitrary, violating equal treatment principles under Article 14.

Judgment :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to set aside the letter dated 6th November, 2019 being Ref: PA(AS)/DIH/N-85/1075/2019 issued by the Respondents and provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner no.2.

2. The deceased, Shyamal Kumar Ganguly, was an employee of the United Bank of India, Durgapur Branch, serving as an Ex-Daftary, holding SPF No. 22365. He died in harness on 4th October 2015, leaving behind his widow (petitioner no.1), his only daughter (petitioner no.2), and his aged, ailing mother, Smt. Sabitri Ganguly. All three were wholly dependent on the income of the deceased employee. The deceased had no other legal heirs or representatives.

3. At the time of his death, the age of the widow was around 48 years, the daughter was approximately 33 years old and was the mother of a 5-year-old male child. The husband of Petitioner No. 2 remained largely unemployed, occasionally engaged in low-paying contractual work, rendering her financially dependent. The mother of the deceased, Smt. Sabitri Ganguly, is over 85 years of age, suffers from chronic ailments, and requires regular medical attention and care, which was being managed by petitioner no.1.

4. Following the death of her husband, petitioner no.1 applied on 3rd May 2016 for compassionate appointment under the “Died in Harness” scheme. In her application to the Assistant General Manager of the Bank (Respondent No.2), she conveyed her inability to take up employment due to her responsibility to look after her ailing mother-in-law. She, therefore, requested that her only daughter, petitioner no.2, be appointed on compassionate grounds, stating that she would care for both her mother and grandmother for the rest of their lives.

5. On the same date, petitioner no.2 submitted an undertaking declaring her commitment to look after her mother and grandmother and accepted that any negligence in fulfilling his duty would lead to termination of her employment.

6. By a letter dated 23rd June 2016, the Chief Manager of the Respondent Bank instructed its Senior Manager to collect supporting documents from the petitioners, including the legal heirship certificate, affidavit, letter of relinquishment, and income details of the married daughter and her family. The petitioners complied with the requirements and submitted all necessary documents on 1st August 2016.

7. At the time of death, the deceased’s last drawn gross monthly salary in September 2015 was Rs..36,158.24, along with other allowances and benefits which ceased upon his death. The family was left with a family pension of Rs.12,685.00, representing a significant and sudden reduction in monthly income.

8. By order dated 8th February 2017, vide Memo No. PA (AS)/DIH/N-85/181/2017, the Chief Manager of the Bank rejected the compassionate appointment claim of petitioner no.2 solely on the ground that she was married and thus could not be considered a dependent family member under the scheme.

9. The petitioners further stated that the said rejection was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it arbitrarily denies equal treatment to a legitimate heir of the deceased employee based solely on her marital status. The Petitioner No. 2, being the only offspring of the deceased and still financially dependent, has no one else to support her, her mother, and her ailing grandmother.

10. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary rejection, the petitioners preferred W.P. No. 13311(W) of 2017 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter was heard by this Hon’ble High Court on 31st July 2019, and set aside the rejection order dat