Supreme Court: In an appeal from an order of the Patna High Court, which upheld the rejection of the appellants’ request for compassionate appointment of her daughter following the death of her husband, the Division Bench of MM Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. held that a policy restricting compassionate appointment to only divorced or deserted daughters is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed that a married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration based on stereotypical assumptions that marriage severs her relationship with her parental family. It reiterated that any classification between sons and daughters based solely on gender or marital status is constitutionally impermissible and that a daughter’s entitlement to consideration for compassionate appointment cannot be denied merely because she is married.
The authorities rejected the application on two grounds:
-
An objection allegedly raised by the brother of Appellant 1.
-
The Government of Bihar’s policy dated 10 December 2014, which restricted compassionate appointments for daughters to only those who were divorced or deserted.
It was also stated that although the daughter’s own divorce had not been formally recognised in law, she had continued to live with and be supported by her parental family, including her mother and brother.
The appellants contended that the brother had already issued a no-objection certificate and that the policy discriminated against married daughters in violation of the Constitution.
The Court reaffirmed that classifications based solely on gender or marital status are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. It held that any policy distinguishing between a son and a daughter is, on its face, unconstitutional and rejected the assumption that a daughter automatically severs her ties with her parental family upon marriage.
“This Court has repeatedly held that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son is, per se, unconstitutional.”
The Court observed that a married daughter may continue to reside with or support her parental family and, therefore, cannot be denied compassionate appointment based on stereotypical notions associated with marriage.
It further held that restricting eligibility for compassionate appointment only to divorced or deserted daughters amounts to arbitrary discrimination and is constitutionally unsustainable.
Emphasising that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee, the Court cautioned against adopting a hyper-technical approach that would defeat this purpose, particularly where the claimant continues to be dependent on or closely connected with the deceased employee’s family. The Court also noted that the brother’s earlier objection no longer survived, as he had already furnished a no-objection certificate, thereby removing one of the grounds on which the claim had been rejected.
In light of these findings, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the judgment of the Patna High Court and the order rejecting the appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment.
The Court directed the State of Bihar to reconsider the appellant’s application for compassionate appointment on its merits within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
[Sayara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, C.A. No.-009779-009779 — 2026, decided on 23-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Rashmi Singh, Adv. Mrs. Priyansha Sharma, AOR Mr. Subhan Shankar Gogoi, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saur