Married Daughter Cannot Be Refused Compassionate Appointment Solely on Marital Status, Rules Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court quashed Bank of Maharashtra's rejection of a married daughter's compassionate appointment application, holding that marital status alone cannot determine dependency.

Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, sitting singly at the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, has allowed a writ petition filed by Afifa Khan @ Devangi Choudhary against the Bank of Maharashtra, setting aside the bank's refusal to consider her for compassionate appointment in place of her deceased father. The bank had rejected her application solely because she was a married daughter, presuming she was dependent on her husband rather than on her father. The court found that presumption to be constitutionally impermissible and directed the bank to reconsider her case afresh within 30 days, applying the principles recently laid down by the Supreme Court in Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. and others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1059.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Afifa Khan's father, Dewashish Choudhary, was a Deputy Manager in the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur Zone, Raipur. He died in harness. As his sole surviving child, Afifa Khan applied for compassionate appointment in his place. The bank rejected her application on the ground that she was married and was therefore considered dependent on her husband, not on her father, making her ineligible as a “Dependent Family Member” under the bank's own policy on compassionate appointments.

She challenged the rejection order dated 27 October 2026 before the Chhattisgarh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the bank's action violated Articles 14, 15, and 16(2) of the Constitution.

In her application filed as Annexure P-2, Afifa Khan stated clearly that she was dependent on her father due to personal economic reasons and was at the time helping her mother. The bank filed a return asserting that she was not dependent on her father and that the compassionate appointment policy itself was not under challenge.

What the Bank's Policy Actually Said

The court examined Clause 3 of the Bank of Maharashtra's policy for appointment on compassionate grounds, filed as Annexure R-1. That clause defines “Dependent Family Member” as including the spouse, a wholly dependent son (including a legally adopted son), a wholly dependent daughter (including a legally adopted daughter), and a wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of an unmarried employee.

A plain reading of the clause made clear that the definition covered a dependent daughter without any express exclusion of a married daughter. There was no language in the policy that restricted the benefit to unmarried daughters alone. Despite this, the bank's rejection order treated Afifa Khan as ineligible simply because of her marital status.

The Legal Question: Can Marital Status Determine Dependency?

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Navin Shukla, argued that the bank's assumption — that a married daughter is necessarily dependent on her husband and not on her father — was discriminatory and incompatible with the Constitution. He relied on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kulsum Nisha (supra).

The bank's counsel, Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, opposed the petition and sought to sustain the impugned order by relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra and another v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (Since After Marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1327.

Justice Agrawal engaged with both precedents, ultimately finding that the more recent ruling in Kulsum Nisha directly governed the facts of this case.

How the Bench Reasoned

The court extracted key passages from the Supreme Court's judgment in Kulsum Nisha at length. The Supreme Court had held there that the exclusion of a married daughter from a dependent-quota scheme could not be sustained because marital status bears no rational nexus to dependency, financial need, or residence. The court had observed that the assumption that upon marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent upon, her parental family is “constitutionally impermissible.”

The Supreme Court's reasoning in Kulsum Nisha drew attention to the unequal treatment between sons and daughters: a married son continued to remain within the definition of family irrespective of his marital status, while a daughter was excluded solely because she had married. That distinction, the Supreme Court held, was “founded upon a gender-based stereotype” and was incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality.

The Supreme Court had further observed that dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone. A blanket exclusion of all married daughters cannot be justified on the speculative assumption that every married daughter necessarily resides elsewhere or is financially reliant on her husband.

Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, Justice Agrawal found two separate grounds to set aside the bank's order. First, the bank's own policy did not expressly exclude married daughters from the definition of Dependent Family Member, yet the bank proceeded as though it did. Second, even if there had been such an exclusion, it would have been manifestly arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down in Kulsum Nisha.

On the question of actual dependency, the court noted that there was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was not dependent on her father. The bank had simply assumed non-dependency from the fact of her marriage. The petitioner's own pleadings, which remained uncontroverted on this point, showed she had declared herself financially dependent on her father and was assisting her mother.

Outcome

Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal allowed the writ petition and quashed the rejection order dated 27 October 2026. The court directed the Bank of Maharashtra to consider Afifa Khan's case for compassionate appointment in place of her father and to take a fresh decision within 30 days of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The court imposed no order as to costs.