Back
Rules Married Daughter Cannot Be Denied Under Bank Employment Policy
In a significant ruling, the of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has invalidated the denial of to a married woman, affirming that marital status is not a valid ground to assume a lack of financial dependency on a deceased parent. Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, presiding over the matter of , ruled that the exclusion of a daughter solely based on her marriage is constitutionally impermissible.
Case Background
The petition was brought by Afifa Khan, the daughter of a late Deputy Manager at the , who had served in the Raipur Zone. Following her father's , the petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds. The Bank rejected her application on the grounds that, as a married woman, she was deemed to be dependent on her husband rather than her father. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing it violated her under the .
Arguments Presented
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Bank’s rejection was arbitrary and discriminatory, citing the ’s precedent in . The petitioner maintained that her dependency on her father was a factual reality, not invalidated by her marriage. Conversely, the Bank relied on its internal policy and a separate ruling, , to contend that its policy for dependent family members did not extend to married daughters under the existing classification of "wholly dependent" members.
Legal Analysis
The ’s analysis centered on the constitutional validity of gender-based assumptions. Reviewing the Bank's policy, the Court noted that while "dependent daughter" is explicitly included in the definition of a dependent family member, the policy contained no express exclusion for married women.
Justice Agrawal highlighted the reasoning from the Kulsum Nisha judgment, which clarified that marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor serves as a legal basis to presume an absence of dependency. The Court held that dependency is a question of fact that must be determined through evidence rather than broad generalizations. By focusing on marital status, the Bank had failed the test of "," perpetuating stereotypes that undermine the .
Key Observations
The judgment delivered several critical insights into the interpretation of dependent quotas:
*
"The exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of 'family' cannot be sustained. The object of allotment under the
is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased dealer facing financial hardship."
*
"Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency."
*
"The distinction is founded upon a gender-based stereotype that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family and loses all ties with her natal family."
*
"Once dependency is accepted as the governing criterion, exclusion of a married daughter solely on account of her marital status becomes wholly irrational and self-defeating."
Court's Decision
The formally quashed the Bank’s rejection order dated . The has been ordered to reconsider the petitioner's application for in light of the principles established in Kulsum Nisha . This decision must be taken within 30 days of receiving the order.
This ruling serves as a strong judicial affirmation that public sector employment policies cannot rely on archaic assumptions against married women, ensuring that the objective of —providing financial relief—remains accessible based on real-world economic necessity rather than gendered status.
