Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded from Compassionate Appointment

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe of the Supreme Court, in Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. (2026), overruled the contrary views taken by the Allahabad High Court and held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of "family" for the purpose of compassionate appointment or grant of a fair price shop licence on compassionate grounds. The Court affirmed the views of the Bombay and Karnataka High Courts, holding that marital status cannot be a valid ground for denying welfare benefits to an otherwise eligible daughter.

What was the Background of Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant, Kulsum Nisha, was a married daughter who sought a fair price shop licence on compassionate grounds following the death of her mother.  
• Even after her marriage, the appellant continued to reside in the same village and actively assisted her mother in running the fair price shop.  
• She was also responsible for taking care of her family, including her physically impaired sister.  
• Following her mother's demise, the appellant applied for the grant of a fair price shop licence in her favour.  
• Her application was rejected on the basis of a 2019 Government Order issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, which excluded married daughters from the definition of "family."  
• The appellant challenged the Government Order before the Allahabad High Court.  
• The Single Judge noted conflicting precedents on the issue:  
  • In Vimal Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015), the Allahabad High Court had struck down the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of "family" under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 as unconstitutional.  
  • However, in Kusumlata v. State of U.P. (2021) and Saida Begum v. State of U.P. (2023), the Allahabad High Court upheld the exclusion of married daughters under the 2019 Government Order.  
• The Single Judge also noted that the Bombay High Court in Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. State of Maharashtra (2014) and other High Courts had held such exclusion unconstitutional.  
• In view of the conflicting judicial opinions, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Marital Status Cannot Be a Ground for Exclusion: 

• The Supreme Court held that exclusion of married daughters from welfare measures solely on the basis of marriage is discriminatory and constitutionally impermissible.  
• The Court observed that no similar disability is attached to married sons.  
• Therefore, treating daughters differently after marriage amounts to gender-based discrimination and violates the guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

Approval of Bombay and Karnataka High Court Views: 

• The Court expressly approved the judgments of the Bombay High Court and Karnataka High Court, which had held that marital status cannot constitute a valid ground for denying compassionate benefits to daughters.  
• It held that the reasoning adopted by these High Courts correctly reflects the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Allahabad High Court's Contrary View Overruled: 

• The Supreme Court held that the judgment in Saida Begum v. State of U.P. (2023) does not lay down the correct law.  
• The Court overruled the contrary view taken by the Allahabad High Court that the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of family is constitutionally valid. 

Facts Demonstrated Continued Dependency and Responsibility: 

• The Court noted that the appellant continued to live in the same village even after marriage.  
• She actively assisted her mother in operating the fair price shop.  
• After her mother's death, she assumed responsibility for her family members, including her disabled sister.  
• These facts demonstrated that the rejection of her claim solely on the basis of her marital status was arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Relief Granted: 

• The Supreme Court set aside the orders denying the appellant a fair price shop licence.  
• The Court directed the competent authorities to issue the licence in her favour within four weeks. 

What is Compassionate Appointment? 

About: 

• Compassionate appointment is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee or licence holder who dies in harness.  
• It is an exception to the general rule of public employment through open competition.  
• The object of compassionate appointment is to alleviate sudden financial hardship faced by the family due to the death of its breadwinner. 

Constitutional Principles Governing Compassionate Appointment: 

• Compassionate appointment schemes must comply with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.  
• Any classification excluding a daughter solely because she is married must satisfy the test of reasonable classification.  
• A distinction based only on marital status, when no such restriction exists for sons, is liable to be struck down as discriminatory.  
• Welfare schemes cannot perpetuate gender stereotypes that assume a daughter ceases to be a member of her parental family after marriage.