MP High Court: Married Daughter Can't Be Denied Compassionate Job On That Ground Alone

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has quashed two orders that denied compassionate appointment to a woman on the ground that she was married, and not widowed or divorced, at the time of her father's death, holding that such a condition cannot survive after the Full Bench's ruling declaring it unconstitutional.

Justice Deepak Khot was recently hearing a writ petition filed by Shashi Prabha, whose father had died in harness on November 5, 2007, while serving as Head Master at a Government Middle School in Biharipura. The petitioner was married at the time of her father's death. She was later deserted by her husband, and a notarized divorce deed was executed between them.

In October 2012, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment as a divorced daughter of the deceased employee. The authorities informed her that a notarized deed was not sufficient and asked her to produce a decree of divorce from a competent court. She obtained one through the Lok Adalat in November 2013, in a first appeal pending before the High Court, and promptly submitted it. Even so, her application was rejected in May 2014. A subsequent representation, in which she stated that she had lived with and remained dependent on her father for six to seven years after being deserted, was also turned down in August 2016.

The State's counsel, Panel Lawyer Shraddha Tiwari, defended the rejection by relying on Clause 2.2 of the State's compassionate appointment policy dated August 18, 2008, which allowed a divorced or widowed daughter to be considered only if she was "wholly dependent" on the deceased employee at the time of his death. Since the petitioner was married when her father died, and was divorced only afterward, the State maintained she did not meet this condition and had no vested right to the appointment.

Advocate Pravesh Naveriya, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the point raised by the State was no longer open to debate, since a Full Bench of the High Court had already dealt with an identical clause in Meenakshi Dubey vs. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and others, and had declared it unconstitutional in March 2020.

Agreeing with this submission, Justice Khot noted that the Full Bench in Meenakshi Dubey had drawn on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya, where the Court had held that "the policy decision of the Union Government is a recognition of the right of women officers to equality of opportunity," rooted in the principle of non-discrimination under Article 15(1) and equality of opportunity in public employment under Article 16(1).

Applying that reasoning to the compassionate appointment policy, the Full Bench had gone on to hold that "Clause 2.2 of the policy dated 29.09.2014 is violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39(a) of the Constitution of India to the extent it deprives the married daughter from right of consideration for compassionate appointment." The Full Bench had also observed that the policy placed no similar marital-status condition on a son being considered for the post, calling the requirement of "unmarried" for a daughter "arbitrary and discriminatory in nature." That ruling had come while resolving a difference of opinion between coordinate benches of the High Court, and the Full Bench ultimately upheld the Indore Bench's decision striking down the marriage-based restriction.

Relying on this precedent, Justice Khot held that the rejection of the petitioner's claim solely because she was married at the time of her father's death, and divorced only later, could not be sustained. The Court set aside both the May 2014 and August 2016 orders and remanded the matter to the competent authority, directing it to decide the petitioner's application afresh, in line with the Meenakshi Dubey ruling, within three months of the certified copy of the order being produced.

With these directions, the writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.

Case Title: Shashi Prabha vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: August 31, 2026

Bench: Justice Deepak Khot