The court determined that barring married daughters from receiving rehabilitation benefits is unconstitutional and directed that such claims be reconsidered accordingly.

ORDER

04.08.2025 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the rejection of the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of Rehabilitation Appointment on the ground that the petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee and accordingly not coming within the definition of Family as provided under Rule- 2 of the OCS(R.A) Rules, 1990. It is contended that such a decision was taken relying on the provisions contained under OCS(R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the deceased employee died on 10.12.2005 and petitioner being the unmarried daughter of the deceased employee made her application to get the benefit on 20.05.2006 which was duly recommended vide letter dated 31.07.2010 under Annexure-4. Subsequently, though various communications were made in between the Opp. Parties and ultimately vide letter dated 18.06.2019 under Annexure-7, claim of the petitioner along with others was recommended for consideration of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, but placing reliance on the provision contained under OCS(R.A.) Amended Rules, 2020 and with the plea that, petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee, such claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated

27.09.2023 under Annexure-10.

4.1. It is contended that since by the time petitioner made the application, she was unmarried and because of the delay attributed to the Opp. Parties, petitioner got married in the meantime, on the ground that petitioner is the married daughter, claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected.

4.2. It is also contended that in a recent decision of this Court in the case of Kshribadhi Bala Behera Vs. Odisha Administrative Tribunal represented through its Registrar, Cuttack and Others (2023) (Supp.I) OLR-620, this Court has already held that married daughters are also eligible to get the benefit of family pension. This Court in Para 46 & 47 of Judgment in Kshirabadhi Bala Behera has held as follows:-

“46. From the factual and legal analysis, as made above, it emanates that institution of marriage is an important and basic civil right of man and woman and marriage by itself is not a disqualification and impugned policy of the State Government barring and prohibiting the consideration of the „married‟ daughter from seeking compassionate appointment merely on the ground of marriage is plainly arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees, as envisaged in Articles 14, 15, and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the word „unmarried‟, as prescribed in Rules, 1990 and Rules, 2020 is hereby struck down being unconstitutional and ultra vires being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the of the Constitution of India.

47. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussions, the orders dated 06.05.2015 and 29.06.2015 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1063 (C) of 2015 and M.P. No.637(C) of 2015 respectively cannot be sustained in the eye of law and accordingly the same are liable to quashed and are hereby quashed. As a consequence thereof, refusal to grant benefit to the „married‟ daughter for consideration of compassionate appointment is hereby declared void and inoperative. Hence, the order impugned passed by the authority in rejecting the petitioner‟s case for compassionate appointment is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the fact that her father was died on 12.12.2010 and her