Top Court - a married daughter would be ineligible for a compassionate appointment

Case: the State of Maharashtra and Another v. Ms Madhuri Maruti Vidhate
Bench: division bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari 

According to the Top Court, a married daughter cannot be said to be 'dependent' on her deceased mother, and, therefore, would be ineligible for a compassionate appointment.

The bench made the clarification while hearing an appeal filed by the Maharashtra government challenging a decision of the Bombay High Court, wherein HC confirmed the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order appointment of the respondent on compassionate grounds.

The respondent's father served with the appellant in the clerical cadre. After he died, his wife, i.e., the mother of the respondent was appointed on the compassionate ground but soon she died in service. Further, the elder sister of the respondent filed an application seeking an appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the application was rejected on August 18, 2011, on the ground that she cannot be given the appointment as she was married.

The Maharashtra Government issued a circular on February 26, 2013, stating that the employee must be provided on compassionate grounds to one of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased government servant. Thereafter, the present respondent, the younger married daughter applied for an appointment on compassionate grounds, however, the same was rejected on April 23, 2013.

The respondent moved an application before the tribunal for appointment after two years of rejection. This application was allowed in the year 2017. The HC upheld the same, leading to the appeal before the SC.

The SC emphasised its decisions in the cases of the Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Another v. V Somyashree (2021) , wherein it outlined the principle governing the appointment on compassionate grounds i.e., to help the family to tide over the crisis.

Accordingly, the SC was of the view that appointing the respondent on compassionate grounds would be contrary to the purposes of appointment on compassionate grounds.

Therefore, the bench allowed the appeal.