Gender discriminatory practices related to compassionate appointments are unconstitutional; marriage cannot disqualify a daughter from such claims.

Judgment :

PER KRISHNA S DIXIT, J.

To set the tone of this judgment, we reproduce the words of Ruth Bader Ginsberg (1933-2020), Associate Justice of U.S Supreme Court in Kahn v. Shevin , 416 U.S. 351.

"…overriding objective must be an end to role delineation by gender, and in its place, conduct at every school level, and later in the job market, signaling that in all fields of endeavor females are welcomed as enthusiastically as males are.”

2. Petitioner, a poor daughter of a deceased-Mazdoor, is grieving before the Writ Court against Orissa Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 08.11.2011 whereby her O.A. No.835 of 2011 has been negatived. In the said O.A., she had called in question the order dated 09.06.2011 by which her claim for compassionate appointment was turned down by the authorities on the ground that she has married during the pendency of her claim.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the marriage as such should not disable a person from claiming compassionate appointment; the impugned order violates gender equality, inasmuch as married sons of deceased-employee can stake such claims. This aspect having not been properly considered by the Tribunal, its order is liable to be voided coupled with a direction to OPs to accord rehabilitatory appointment to the petitioner, argues the counsel.

4. Learned AGA appearing for the answering Opposite Parties opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders contending that the compassionate appointment is governed by the provisions of Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990; in the definition clause of these Rules, the compassionate appointment avails to the bereaved family members on the death of bread winning employee; a married daughter is not within the said definition and therefore, the impugned order is inexplicable. So contending, she seeks dismissal of petition.

5. FOUNDANTIONAL FACTS:

5.1. One Mr. Hari Machha was working under Chief Construction Engineer, Pateru Irrigation Project during the period between 15.07.1969 & 19.12.1999 uninterruptedly and sans any complaint whatsoever. Arithmetically, this service is more than thirty years, is not disputed. He died on 20.12.1999 leaving the widow & the sole daughter, i.e., petitioner. The widow having consented filing affidavit, petitioner had staked her claim for compassionate appointment by making an application dated 21.08.2000.

5.2. The Engineer-in-Chief, vide letters dated 26.08.2008 and 26.10.2009, had conveyed the approval for compassionate appointment of the Petitioner. The Additional Secretary to Government, vide letter dated 06.04.2010, conveyed the approval granted by the Secretary to the Government for such appointment subject to production & verification of filed documents enlisted therein. However, the appointment was denied on the ground that the Petitioner contracted marriage in 2006. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner knocked at the doors of Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.835 of 2011, which came to be negatived by the impugned order that is put in challenge by way of judicial review, at our hands.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

6.1. Father of the petitioner died in harness having put in more than thirty years of continuous and spotless service. Petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment duly made in time came to be rejected only on the ground that she contracted marriage in 2006. This is absolutely obnoxious, to say the least, because: immediately after the death in harness, the application for compassionate appointment was made; the Apex Court in a c