Madras High Court: While deciding the question that whether a married daughter of a deceased Government employee is eligible for compassionate appointment, the Court observed that there cannot be any discrimination between a married son and a married daughter and making such discrimination on grounds of marriage is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Constitution of India.
In the instant case, the petitioner’s father was employed in the department of Animal Husbandry as Office Assistant. Post his death during the period of service, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on the ground that she was deserted by her husband and since then was living under the care and control of her father. The respondents denied the petitioner’s appointment on the ground that she was not a divorcee at the time of her father’s death. The Government Pleader for the respondents R. Govindasamy contended that marriage renders a daughter ineligible for compassionate appointment which otherwise can be granted only when a daughter is unmarried or is a divorcee at the time of application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner was represented by S.Parthasarathy.
On perusing the facts and arguments presented for the case D. Hariparanthaman, J. observed that when a married son is not disqualified for compassionate appointment then there should be no discrimination in case of a married daughter. The Court further observed that when the petitioner has come with a plea that she was deserted by her husband and a decree of divorce was granted and she was under the care and control of her father at the time of his death, the Government cannot deny compassionate appointment on the ground that divorce was obtained after the death of her father. Rejecting the impugned Government Order the Court directed the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. P.R. Renuka v. Director of Animal Husbandry, decided on 27.10.2014