Supreme Court: Married daughters eligible for compassionate appointments, Bihar policy struck down
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has struck down a Bihar policy that barred married daughters from compassionate appointments, ruling that presuming a married daughter severs ties with her parental family has no basis in law. The verdict reinforces constitutional equality between sons and daughters in government employment relief — and sets a precedent that could unsettle similar restrictive policies in other states.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court ruled that married daughters cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment consideration on the basis of marital status.
Bihar's 10 December 2014 policy — limiting compassionate appointments to divorced or deserted daughters — was held unconstitutional under Article 14 .
A bench of Justice M.M.
Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B.
Varale allowed the appeal of Sayara Khatoon and her daughter, setting aside the Patna High Court order.
The court rejected the presumption that a married daughter automatically severs ties with her parental family.
The Bihar government has been directed to reconsider the appellant's case on merits within eight weeks .
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment solely on the basis of her marital status, striking down a Bihar government policy that restricted such appointments to divorced or deserted daughters as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale allowed an appeal filed by Sayara Khatoon and her daughter, challenging a Patna High Court order that had upheld the Bihar authorities' rejection of the daughter's compassionate appointment claim following her father's death in service.
The dispute centred on a Bihar government policy dated 10 December 2014, which limited eligibility for compassionate appointments among daughters exclusively to those who were divorced or deserted. The appellants argued this classification was arbitrary and discriminatory.
What the Supreme Court Held
The apex court was categorical: any distinction between sons and daughters in the context of compassionate appointments is constitutionally impermissible. 'This Court has repeatedly held that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son is, per se, unconstitutional,' the bench stated.
On the specific Bihar policy, the court held that 'classification restricting eligibility only to a divorced or deserted daughter cannot be sustained in the eye of law.' It also rejected the presumption embedded in the policy, observing: 'There cannot be a presumption in law that, after marriage, a daughter severs her ties with her parental family and resides with her husband in her matrimonial home.'
The No-Objection Certificate Issue
The Bihar government had additionally rejected the claim on the ground that the deceased employee's brother had objected to the appointment. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the brother had earlier furnished a no-objection certificate, and recorded that 'the said ground for rejection no longer survives.'
The court also noted that the appellant had specifically stated she had been living with her parental family — despite her marriage not being formally dissolved — and was supported by her mother and brother. The bench cautioned that 'adopting a hyper-technical approach cannot be a ground to deny consideration of her claim for compassionate appointment.'
Court's Directions to Bihar Government
Setting aside both the Patna High Court order and the original rejection of the compassionate appointment, the Supreme Court directed the Bihar government to reconsider the appellant's case on merits. The court ordered: 'The respondent is directed to consider the case of the appellant for compassionate appointment on merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'
Broader Significance
This ruling reinforces a line of Supreme Court precedent holding that gender-based classifications in government employment policies must withstand constitutional scrutiny under Article 14. Compassionate appointments — intended to provide immediate relief to a deceased government employee's family — have historically been a contested terrain for gender equity, and this judgment adds significant weight to the principle that daughters, regardless of marital status, retain ties to their parental family and cannot be arbitrarily excluded from such relief. The Bihar government now has eight weeks to act on the court's directions.
Point of View
That differentiating a daughter from a son is 'per se unconstitutional,' gives affected families a clear legal hook to challenge such policies. What the judgment does not address is enforcement: compassionate appointments remain discretionary in practice, and states with restrictive policies may simply delay compliance rather than proactively revise their frameworks. The eight-week deadline for Bihar is a start, but systemic change will require either legislative action or a broader constitutional challenge to similar policies across states.
NationPress
31 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court rule on married daughters and compassionate appointments?
The Supreme Court ruled that a married daughter cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment solely because of her marital status. It held that any policy restricting such appointments to only divorced or deserted daughters violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
What was Bihar's compassionate appointment policy and why was it struck down?
Bihar's 10 December 2014 policy allowed compassionate appointments for daughters only if they were divorced or deserted. The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional, holding that it created an impermissible gender-based classification and rested on the legally unsustainable presumption that a married daughter severs ties with her parental family.
Who are the parties involved in this Supreme Court case?
The appellants are Sayara Khatoon and her daughter, who challenged the rejection of the daughter's compassionate appointment claim after her father's death in service. The respondent is the Bihar government, whose policy and the Patna High Court's order upholding it were both set aside by the Supreme Court.
What happens next after the Supreme Court's order?
The Bihar government has been directed to reconsider the appellant's compassionate appointment claim on merits within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the Supreme Court's order. The earlier grounds for rejection — including the brother's objection — have been set aside by the court.
What is a compassionate appointment and who is eligible?
A compassionate appointment is a government employment provision that allows a deceased or incapacitated government employee's dependent family member to be appointed to a suitable post, providing immediate financial relief. Eligibility criteria vary by state policy, but the Supreme Court has now clarified that daughters — regardless of marital status — cannot be categorically excluded from consideration.
