The Madras High Court in a recent judgment observed that “in the matters of compassionate appointment, granting the appointment can be the rule and denying it may be an exception”. The bench of Justice RN Manjula said that providing compassionate appointments is more like fulfilling an unwritten will of the deceased government servant.
“The matters of compassion not only require an understanding by getting into the shoes of the applicant but also in the shoes of the deceased government servant, like how the deceased would have wished to settle his dependents in life, if he was alive,” Justice Manjula.
The observations were made in a plea filed by a woman whose application for compassionate employment in Canara Bank following her father’s death on January 27, 2017, had been rejected by the bank on the ground that she was married at the time of her father’s death and, therefore, was not dependent on him.
She moved the High Court under Article 226, challenging two circulars by the Canara Bank excluding married daughters from “dependent family member” status for compassionate appointments. She also challenged the bank’s rejection order dated November 25, 2019, citing her marriage during her father’s death as grounds for ineligibility for compassionate employment.
Her counsel argued that the law is well-settled on the point that even married daughters are entitled to compassionate appointments.
On the other hand, the counsel for the bank and its officials contended that a married daughter is entitled to compassionate appointment, provided she is wholly dependent on her father.
He submitted that the petitioner had earlier worked as a nurse in a private hospital and she left that job of her own volition without any valid reasons. Therefore, the bank argued that the petitioner would not come under the category of the daughter who was wholly dependent upon the income of her father.
Addressing the issue, the High Court noted that proving dependency on the father’s income is more straightforward for sons in societal norms, as living with parents post-marriage is commonplace, but in contrast, if married daughters reside with their parents, it is viewed as unconventional, leading to skepticism when they claim dependency.
The court asserted that proving dependency for a married daughter on her father becomes tough when she lives with her husband or has a separate household, regardless of her job. Contributions from parents to her life at her in-laws often go unnoticed, as disclosure may be seen as compromising family dignity, it said.
Therefore, it opined that married daughters shouldn’t be pressured to provide records proving financial reliance post-marriage.
Further, the court emphasized the need for an empathetic approach in handling such cultural complexities.
In the case at hand, the court observed that much ado was made about the married daughter’s employment as a nurse whereas this very employment showed that she required a job to make her living.
While underscoring that there was nothing wrong with the petitioner resigning from a private job as it is not secured and well paid as that of a job in a government or its undertakings, court held that the matter ought not to have been handled in a pedantic manner.
It directed the bank to reconsider the application of the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made by it and issue an order of appointment for the petitioner suiting to the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Comments
0 comment