Case at a Glance
A bank employee died in service in 2015; his daughter, married in 2013 and a homemaker without income, applied for compassionate appointment. The bank rejected her claim in 2022 because she married before his death and was not ‘wholly dependent’. The Madras High Court set aside the rejection, holding that the scheme in force at the date of death governs, and that, following the Supreme Court in Kulsum Nisha, marriage does not sever a daughter’s dependency. It directed the bank to appoint her within eight weeks.
The petitioner’s father, P. Govindasamy, was an employee of a bank later merged into Punjab National Bank, and died in service on 30 November 2015. Her mother had died in 2008. The petitioner married on 10 July 2013, before her father’s death, and describes herself as a housewife with no income of her own; her brother works as a driver and her husband was employed. According to the bank’s counter affidavit, she moved out of her father’s house in 2019 because of water and drainage problems.
Her application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Circle Head on 23 November 2022 on the ground that, having married before her father’s death, she was not ‘wholly dependent’ on him. The bank also relied on amendments to its scheme made later, through HRMD Circulars 495 of 2020 and 550 of 2021. She challenged the rejection under Article 226.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a married daughter be denied compassionate appointment solely because she was married before the employee’s death, and which version of the scheme applies?
Marriage Does Not End a Daughter’s Dependency
Justice C. Kumarappan held that the policy in force on the date of the employee’s death governs a claim for compassionate appointment, relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi, (2021) 11 SC CK 0025, (2022) 2 SCC 157, Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 01 SC CK 0013, (2020) 2 SCC 729, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 09 SC CK 0044, (2020) 10 SCC 496. The bank’s reliance on circulars issued in 2020 and 2021 was therefore misplaced.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P., (2026) 06 SC CK 0047, 2026 INSC 617, the Court held that marriage does not sever a daughter’s dependency: “Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone.” It found the bank’s reasons — the mother’s earlier death, the marriage, the siblings’ employment and the separate residence — insufficient, noting that a married son would not face the same exclusion and that her moving out arose from water and drainage problems. The Court said such an understanding “is contrary to human values”, and also referred to a Chhattisgarh High Court decision of 16 July 2026 following Kulsum Nisha.
What the Court Actually Held
- The order of rejection dated 23 November 2022 was set aside and the writ petition was allowed, without costs.
- The compassionate appointment scheme in force on the date of the employee’s death governs the claim, not later amendments.
- Marriage does not by itself sever a daughter’s dependency; dependency is a question of fact.
- The bank must appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Married daughters are frequently denied compassionate appointment on the assumption that they are not dependent.
- It applies the Supreme Court’s Kulsum Nisha ruling within weeks of its availability to High Court litigants.
- It reaffirms that the scheme at the date of death governs, preventing reliance on later, stricter circulars.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families of Deceased Employees
- A married daughter can claim compassionate appointment; show actual dependency on the deceased.
- Identify the scheme in force on the date of death and rely on it.
For Counsel
- Cite Kulsum Nisha (2026 INSC 617) against marital-status-based exclusion.
- Rely on Ashish Awasthi, Promila and Amit Shrivas on the applicable scheme.
- Highlight unequal treatment compared with married sons.
Key Takeaways
- Marital status alone cannot decide dependency.
- The scheme at the date of death governs.
- Siblings’ employment and separate residence did not defeat the claim here.
- The bank has eight weeks to appoint the daughter.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a married daughter get compassionate appointment?
Yes, per this judgment, following Kulsum Nisha: marriage does not sever a daughter’s dependency, and dependency must be assessed as a question of fact.
Which rules apply to a compassionate appointment claim?
The Court held that the scheme in force when the employee died governs, not later amendments.
What did the Court order?
It set aside the rejection and directed the bank to appoint the petitioner within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court has rejected the assumption that a married daughter ceases to be a dependant, and ordered the bank to appoint her within a fixed time.
Practical takeaway: A married daughter’s claim for compassionate appointment must be assessed on actual dependency under the scheme in force on the date of death; marriage alone is not a ground for rejection.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com