Marital status cannot be the sole criterion to exclude a daughter from compassionate appointment; dependency is a factual determination. Excluding married daughters based on the presumption of dependency on a spouse is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

Order on Board

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 27-10-2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent by which the application for compassionate appointment in place of her father has been rejected by the respondent Bank.

2. The petitioner’s father namely Dewashish Choudhary was Deputy Manager in the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Zone, Raipur. He died in harness. The petitioner being the married daughter of the deceased Bank employee, applied for appointment in his place which was rejected on the ground that she is married and as such, she is dependent upon her husband, therefore, she is not considered for appointment in place of her father against which this petition has been filed.

3. Return has been filed stating inter alia that the petitioner is not dependent upon her father and the policy for appointment on compassionate ground has not been questioned and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment in place of her father.

4. Mr. Navin Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein, would submit that the respondent Bank is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of her father and merely because the petitioner is married daughter, she cannot be held ineligible to apply for compassionate appointment holding that only unmarried daughter is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment which violates the mandate of Articles 14, 15 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. and others , (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1059) to support his submission.

5. Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank, would oppose the writ petition and support the impugned order relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and another v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (Since After Marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli), (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1327) to buttress his submission.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father, who was working as Deputy Manager in the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Zone, Raipur, died in harness leaving behind his sole married daughter and the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment in place of her father stood rejected on the ground that she is married and she is considered to be dependent upon her husband and she is not the family member of her father. In this regard, clause 3 – Dependent Family Member, of the policy of the respondent Bank of Maharashtra for appointment on compassionate grounds filed as Annexure R-1 may be noticed herein, which states as under: -

“3. DEPENDENT FAMILY MEMBER

Dependent family members eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds shall be;

(a) Spouse; or

(b) Wholly dependent son(including legally adopted son);

or

(c) Wholly dependent daughter (including legally adopted daughter); or

(d) Wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried employee”

8. A careful perusal of the aforesaid clause would show that the dependent daughter is included in the definition of Dependent Family Member an