CUTTACK: In a significant ruling on gender equality in public employment, the Orissa High Court has set aside the rejection of a woman’s claim for compassionate appointment solely on the ground that she married during the pendency of her application.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Krishna Shripad Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash delivered the order while allowing a petition filed by daughter of a deceased mazdoor. She had on December 13, 2011, filed in the high court a petition challenging the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated November 8, 2011, which upheld the authorities’ decision to deny her appointment. She is now in her early 40s.
The court quashed the Tribunal’s order dated November 8, 2011, and the office order dated June 9, 2011, directing the state government to grant the woman compassionate appointment within eight weeks. Any delay will attract a penalty of Rs 500 per day, recoverable personally from erring officials.
A compliance report must be filed before the registrar general within two weeks thereafter. Her father had served under the chief construction engineer, Pateru Irrigation Project, from July 15, 1969 to December 19, 1999, over 30 years of continuous and spotless service. He died in harness on December 20, 1999, leaving behind his widow and sole daughter.
With her mother’s consent, she applied for compassionate appointment on August 21, 2000. Though the engineer-in-chief recommended her case in 2008 and 2009, and the additional secretary conveyed government approval in April 2010 subject to document verification, the appointment was ultimately denied because she had married in 2006.
The bench, expressing anguish over the delay, said, “What an enormity of mindlessness, the government and its functionaries conduct the public affairs with, would bewilder any sensible mind.”
Emphasising equality, the court held, “For the purpose of compassionate appointment, women, i.e., daughters constitute one homogenous class and that excluding the married daughters would create an artificial class within the class and therefore, would fall foul of doctrine of equality enshrined in the Constitution.”
It further added, “If marriage is not a disability for sons of a deceased-employee to stake claim for compassionate appointment, it cannot be a disability for daughters too.”
Terming the rejection “absolutely obnoxious”, the court observed, “Employee cannot endlessly wait for the authorities to take the decision on the claim for compassionate appointment, inasmuch as aging being an inevitable consequence of run of the time; cannot be halted merely because the authorities are sleepy and tardy.”