Orissa High Court: In a review petition against the High Court’s decision rejecting the petitioner’s compassionate appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, Dr. S.K. Panigrahi*, J. allowed the petition and set aside the impugned decision. The Court reiterated that the yardstick for extending the benefit of compassionate appointment should be dependency of the dependents on the deceased and the marital status of dependent should not be an impediment for his/her consideration on compassionate ground.
In the matter at hand, the petitioner’s father was appointed as a Physical Education teacher in a High School. He died in service on 01-08-2004 and after his death the petitioner, then unmarried daughter and one of the legal heirs made an application on 26-07-2005 for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme against her deceased father. Her application was duly forwarded by the Headmaster of the School to the Respondent on the very same day. After one year of the application, the petitioner got married. Thereafter, the respondent denied giving any post to the petitioner citing Government’s Letter dated 30-08-2010, which prohibited married daughters from availing the benefit of such recruitments on compassionate grounds, thus, the present petition.
Relying upon Basanti Nayak v. State of Orissa1, wherein the Court held that the refusal to grant benefit to the ‘married’ daughter for consideration of compassionate appointment is illegal and arbitrary, the Court reiterated that the dismissal of the candidacy of a married daughter for compassionate appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme was not justifiable for being arbitrary and violative of the constitutional guarantees, as envisaged in Articles 14, 15, and 16(2) of the Constitution of India.
Further, the Court reiterated that the yardstick for extending the benefit of compassionate appointment should be dependency of the dependents on the deceased Government Servant and the marital status of dependent should not be an impediment for his/her consideration on compassionate ground to provide support to suffering family on account of loss of an earning member in the family. The Court stated that “a daughter after her marriage doesn’t cease to be daughter of the father or mother and is obliged to maintain their parents and daughter cannot be allowed to escape her responsibility on the ground that she is now married”. Therefore, the Court said that such a policy of the State Government which disqualifies, a ‘married’ daughter and excludes her from consideration apart from being arbitrary and discriminating, is a retrograde step of State Government as a welfare State, on which cannot be approved by the Court.
The Court noted that the petitioner married in 2005. Therefore, the Court said that assertion in the year 2022, as to cancellation of petitioner’s candidacy due to her marriage in the interim was entirely incorrect and misconceived. Hence, the Court held that the order dated 11-07-2022 be reconsidered and revoked, and the case be reinstated for a thorough hearing and adjudication on its merits, considering the misunderstanding and inaccurate presentation by the former counsel for the petitioner.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned decision which rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. The Court directed that the application of the petitioner be considered from the day her application was considered for the first time i.e. in 2013. The Court also noted that about eleven years had passed when the petitioner applied for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme and many years were spent in litigation, hence, the age of the petitioner shall not be a factor to consider her for a suitable job under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme by the Authority, in the interest of justice and fair play.
[Seemarani Pandab v. State of Odisha, 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1074, Decided on: 08-02-2024]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Dr. S.K. Panigrahi
1. WPC(OAC) No.2669 of 2008.
