IMPORTANT POINT
Exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointments violates Articles 14, 15, and 16(2) of the Constitution, establishing gender equality in public employment.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner, who happens to be the married daughter of the deceased employee late Omkar Prasad Verma has filed this petition seeking compassionate appointment on account of death of her father. He was working as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat, Bartori, Janpad Panchayat, Tilda, District – Raipur who died in harness on 26/12/2021. Following prayer has been made by the petitioner in this petition -

“i. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 02/09/2022 and pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

ii. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly declare the cause No.3 of the compassionate appointment policy dated 27/02/2015 to be void and inoperative so far excluding the married daughter/women from entitlement towards compassionate appointment.

iii. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be call for the records for its kind perusal which relates to petitioner’s matter.

iv. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Facts of the case in nutshell as projected in the writ petition is that the deceased employee left behind his legal heirs wife namely Vijay Kumari and three daughters namely Mamta Rani Verma, Deepmala and Dikeshwari. After the death of her father, the petitioner without any delay made an application on 24/01/2022 to respondent No.4 i.e. District Panchayat, Raipur along with consent letter of mother and two sisters and necessary testimonials and other relevant documents making a prayer therein to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The application was forwarded by respondent No.5 vide its letter dated 01/02/2022 to respondent No.4 for further action. The application for grant of compassionate appointment was put up before the concerned committee on 24/02/2022 and the committee took a decision to the effect that suitable direction is required from respondent No.2 in the light of circular dated 23/03/2019 issued by General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh which included a provision that the married daughter is also entitled to compassionate appointment whereas the internal circular of the Panchayat Department dated 27/02/2015, the word ‘unmarried’ has not been removed. A request was made to respondent No.2 by respondent No.4 to give suitable direction on the issue involved so that the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment may be decided. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 02/09/2022, placing reliance on the communication dated 20/07/2022, the application of the petitioner for grant compassionate appointment was rejected giving reason that the married daughters are not entitled for compassionate appointment. This is under challenge before this Court in this writ petition.

3. Return on behalf of respondents have been filed. Respondents 4 and 5 have pleaded in the return that they have to follow the instructions issued by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, CG dated 27/02/2015 and as such, the married daughters are not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. Hence, her application was rejected. There cannot be any deviation from the policy/directions dated 27/02/2015. Hence, until and unless the policy provides for entitlement of the petitioner being a married daughter to be appointed on compassionate grounds, such appointment cannot take place.

4. Learned State counsel submits that adopts the pleadings of respondents 4 and 5.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned communication dated 02/09/2022 is bad in law and in direct violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also gender biased. He submits that there cannot be any discrimination between a married son and a married daughter and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside directing responde