Bihar policy to restrict compassionate appointment to divorced or deserted daughters cannot be sustained: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that the Bihar government's 2014 policy classifying only divorced or deserted daughters as eligible for compassionate appointment cannot be sustained in law [Sayara Khatoon @ Shayara Khatoon & Anr v State of Bihar & Ors.].

The Court said there can be no presumption in law that a daughter severs ties with her parental family merely because she is married.

In an order passed on July 23, Justices MM Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale set aside a Patna High Court judgment as well as the Bihar government's order rejecting a widow's request for compassionate appointment for her daughter following her husband's death.

The Court held that restricting compassionate appointment to only divorced or deserted daughters could not be sustained in law.

"On a perusal of the policy, we find that classification restricting eligibility only to a divorced or deserted daughter cannot be sustained in the eye of law. There cannot be a presumption in law that, after marriage, a daughter severs her ties with her parental family and resides with husband in her matrimonial home."

It further reiterated that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son is unconstitutional.

The case arose after a widow sought compassionate appointment for her daughter following her husband's death.

The claim was rejected under the Bihar government's policy dated December 10, 2014. The policy made only divorced or deserted daughters eligible for compassionate appointment. The authorities also relied on an objection raised by the widow's brother.

The widow and her daughter challenged the rejection before the Patna High Court, which dismissed their plea.

Aggrieved by the decision, they approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, they submitted that the widow's brother had later furnished a no-objection certificate. They argued that the first ground for rejection no longer survived. They also challenged the 2014 policy as violative of Article 14.

The State contended that compassionate appointment is governed by policy and that a married daughter is ordinarily expected to leave her parental home after marriage.

The Supreme Court rejected this contention. It held that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son is unconstitutional and that the law cannot presume a married daughter severs ties with her parental family.

The Court also noted that the daughter had specifically stated that although her divorce had not been formally recognised by law, she had been living with her parental family and had the support of both her mother and brother.

It held that adopting a hyper-technical approach could not be a ground to deny consideration of her claim for compassionate appointment.

Thus, the Bench set aside the Patna High Court judgment and the order rejecting the daughter's claim for compassionate appointment. It directed the Bihar government to consider her claim on merits within eight weeks.

Advocates Rashmi Singh, Priyansha Sharma and Subhan Shankar Gogoi appeared for the appellants.

Advocates Manish Kumar, Divyansh Mishra and Kumar Saurav appeared for the respondents.

[Read Order]