G.Chitra vs The Head Office

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
G.Chitra ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Head Office,
Rep.by its General Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
No.11, Hemant Basu Sarani,
Kolkata – 700001.
2. The Circle Head,
Circle Office, HRD Department, CO: Chennai,
Punjab National Bank,
nd
PNB Towers, 2 Floor, No.46-49, Royapettah High Road,
Royapettah, Chennai.
3. The Branch Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
K.K.R.Building, 121, Perambur Branch,
Madhavaram High Road,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
proceedings of the second respondent issued in letter HRMD: IR : ECG dated
23.11.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
appoint compassionate appointment, consequent on the death petitioner’s
father late P.Govindasamy on 30.11.2015 while serving employed as Award
Staff-Bank Cashier vide S.P.F.No.25743 within the time to be stipulated by
this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Solomon
For Respondents : Mr. P.Raghunathan,
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co

O R D E R
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the proceedings of the second
respondent issued in Letter HRMD: IR: ECG dated 23.11.2022 and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on
compassionate grounds, consequent upon the death of the petitioner’s father,
namely, late P.Govindasamy, on 30.11.2015, while he was serving as Award
Staff-Bank Cashier, vide S.P.F.No.25743, within the time to be stipulated by
this Court.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present
Writ Petition are that the petitioner and one Vivek are the children of
P.Govindasamy. He died on 30.11.2015 while he was serving in the Union
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
Bank of India, which was subsequently merged with the Punjab National
Bank, as a Head Cashier. After the demise of their father, the petitioner, who
claims to have been wholly dependent upon her father, submitted an
application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The same was
rejected by the second respondent vide order dated 23.11.2022, observing as
follows:
“It is apparent from record that deceased employee,
Shri.P.Govindasamy is survived by his daughter, Smt.G.Chitra
i.e. Petitioner and son Mr.G.Vivek who is working as driver as
per the documents submitted by Smt.G.Chitra. Deceased
employee's wife Smt.Malathy passed away on 05.03.2008.
Since, Smt.G.Chitra was married on 10.07.2013 i.e. much
before the death of deceased employee i.e. on 30.11.2015, she
cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e.,
her deceased father. Therefore, proposal of Compassionate
Appointment to Smt.G.Chitra was accordingly declined by the
Competent Authority.”
Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
conclusion arrived at in the impugned order that, on account of the
petitioner’s marriage, she cannot be treated as a dependent upon her father is
contrary to the constitutional mandate. Admittedly, the petitioner is a
housewife and, merely because the petitioner resides outside the parental
3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
home after the demise of her father, that too on account of water shortage, the
same cannot be construed to mean that the petitioner was not dependent upon
her father.
3.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that,
while considering the impugned order, apart from the Scheme dated
19.09.2014, the respondents have also taken into consideration the
subsequent amendments made to the compassionate appointment scheme
during the years 2020 and 2021. Ultimately, the rejection of the petitioner’s
claim is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it
has been categorically held that an application for compassionate
appointment has to be considered in accordance with the scheme prevailing
on the date of death of the employee.
3.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further invite the
attention of this Court to the fact that, though the petitioner’s application had
been pending since 2016, on account of the total inaction on the part of the
respondents, when the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ
Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus, the impugned order came to be passed
4/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
rejecting the petitioner’s request by taking into consideration irrelevant
materials. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulsum Nisha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
reported in 2026 INSC 617. Hence, he prayed to allow the present Writ
Petition.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would
contend that the petitioner does not satisfy the essential requirement to fall
within the definition of “dependent”. The fact that she got married two years
prior to the death of the employee would, clearly demonstrate that she was
not dependent upon her father. The scheme permits compassionate
appointment only to a person who was wholly dependent upon the deceased
employee. The condition relating to a “wholly dependent daughter” was
introduced pursuant to HRMD Circular No.495 dated 23.03.2020 and HRMD
Circular No.550 dated 09.02.2021.
4.1. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents
that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public
employment and that such appointment has to be considered strictly in
5/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
accordance with the applicable scheme. There cannot be any appointment on
the ground of sympathy, particularly when thousands of unemployed
meritorious persons are awaiting employment. The respondents have taken a
decision in accordance with the guidelines applicable to compassionate
appointment and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
The learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that the
petitioner has not established that she was wholly dependent upon the
deceased employee.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
6. After the amendment made pursuant to the aforesaid HRMD
Circulars, the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment are as
mentioned in the impugned order, which reads as follows:-
4. COVERAGE
4.1 To a dependent family member of a permanent employee of
the Bank who -a) dies while in service (including death by
suicide)
5. DEPENDENT FAMILY MEMBER
5.1 Spouse; or
5.2 Wholly dependent son (including legally adopted son); or
6/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
5.3 Wholly dependent daughter (including legally adopted
daughter); or
5.4 Wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried
employee.
The proposal of Smt.G.Chitra has been declined by the
Competent Authority on the ground that Smt.G.Chitra had
already been married on 10.07.2013 i.e before the death of
employee on 30.11.2015 and was not wholly dependent upon the
deceased employee at the time of death of employee in terms of
the scheme. As such she is not covered under the scheme for
compassionate appointment.”
7. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in State of M.P. Vs. Ashish Awasthi reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157, wherein it
has been held that, while considering an appointment on compassionate
grounds, the policy prevailing on the date of death of the employee has to be
followed. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract
paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgment, which read as follows:-
“5. As per the settled proposition of law laid down by this
Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy
prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is
required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.
6. In Indian Bank v. Promila [Indian Bank v. Promila,
(2020) 2 SCC 729 : (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 312] , it is observed
and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be
decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date
of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be
looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in State
7/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10
SCC 496 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 68] . It is required to be noted
that in Amit Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10
SCC 496 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 68] the very scheme applicable
in the present case was under consideration and it was held that
the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased
employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the
impugned judgment and order [Ashish Awasthi v. State of M.P.,
2018 SCC OnLine MP 1824] passed by the Division Bench is
unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Therefore, the very procedure adopted by the respondents by taking into
consideration the amendments which came into force during the years 2020-
2021 gives sufficient reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned
order, as the same is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
8. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the conditions
extracted hereinabove would also apply to a compassionate appointment
arising out of the death which took place in the year 2015, this Court has still
has sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order in view of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulsum Nisha’s case (cited
supra).
8/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
9. In the case in hand, the respondents have excluded the petitioner
from the definition of a “wholly dependent daughter”. In order to substantiate
their contention that the petitioner was not wholly dependent upon the
deceased employee, they relied upon the following circumstances:-
(i) the wife of the employee, viz., the mother of the
petitioner, died in the year 2008, prior to the death of the
employee;
(ii) the petitioner got married on 10.07.2013, prior to the
death of the employee; and
(iii) the brother of the petitioner and the husband of the
petitioner are employed elsewhere.
(iv) Furthermore, the petitioner and her brother are residing
at two different places.
10. Therefore, according to the respondents, there was no family, and
that the petitioner is not a dependent upon the deceased employee on the date
of his death On the face of it, this Court finds that the petitioner has been
overtly discriminated merely on the ground that she happens to be the
married daughter of the deceased employee.
11. The very consideration of the fact that during 2019, the
petitioner was residing at a different place from her father’s residence, that
9/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
too after the demise of the deceased employee, is arbitrary and ought not to
have been a ground for rejecting the petitioner’s request that the above
reasoning ground for absence of dependency. However, in the counter
affidavit, in all fairness, the respondents have stated as follows:-
“The United Bank of India got merged with Punjab National
Bank on 01.04.2020. In fact, on 19.04.2019, an Officer of the
bank visited the house of the deceased employee who
reported that the Petitioner was married and nobody was
staying in her father's property due to water problem and
drainage problem.”
12. Even according to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents,
the petitioner shifted her residence in the year 2019 on account of water and
drainage problems. Further, in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, the
respondents have stated that “the competent authority considered the
petitioner’s representation and passed order on 23.11.2022 holding that the
petitioner was already married before the death of the employee on
30.11.2015 and that she was not wholly dependent on the deceased employee
at the time of death of the employee in terms of the scheme”.
13. On a perusal of the aforesaid reason, it is amply clear that the
respondents were of the view that merely on account of the marriage of the
10/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
petitioner, being the daughter of the deceased employee, her dependency
upon her father would cease. Such an understanding is contrary to human
values and, in the present scenario, only demonstrates the ignorance of the
authorities with regard to contemporary social realities. While submitting the
application, the petitioner had categorically stated that she was a housewife
and had no income of her own. Merely because her husband was earning
some amount during the preceding four years, as reflected in the certificate
annexed to the typed set of papers dated 10.01.2019, it cannot be construed
that, as on the date of the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner was
not dependent upon her father. Even if the documents relied upon by the
respondents are taken at their face value, the same is not sufficient to
establish that, the petitioner was not wholly dependent upon her father.
14. Admittedly, the petitioner was residing along with her father, which
is evident from her Aadhaar Card enclosed in the typed set of papers and the
address mentioned in the application form. Therefore, the reason that since
because her husband was earning for lost four years, the petitioner could not
be dependent upon her father during her father’s life time, is a perverse
reason. At this juncture, according to the D.K. Illustrated Oxford
Dictionary, the word “dependent” means a person who relies on another for
11/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
financial support.
15. From the available documents, it is evident that the petitioner is a
housewife and was not gainfully employed. Merely because her brother and
her husband are gainfully employed, it does not mean that the petitioner was
not dependent upon the income of her father. By assigning such reasons, the
respondents have discriminated against the petitioner merely because she is a
married daughter, which cannot be countenanced in view of the recent
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulsum Nisha’s case (cited
supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the assumption that the
marriage of a daughter severs her membership of, or dependency upon, her
parental family is constitutionally impermissible. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has further held that marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a
daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume
absence of dependency.
16. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraphs
19 and 20 of the judgment in Kulsum Nisha’s case (cited supra).which read
as follows:-
12/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
“19. The impugned provision proceeds on the assumption
that upon marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of, or
dependent upon, her parental family. Such an assumption is
constitutionally impermissible. Marriage neither extinguishes
the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor
furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency.
Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married
daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent
upon their parents. Equally, there may be sons who are not
dependent upon the family despite being included within the
definition. Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be
conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone.
20. Significantly, the scheme does not exclude a married
son from consideration. A son continues to remain within the
fold of the family irrespective of his martial status, whereas a
daughter is excluded solely because she is married. The
distinction is founded upon a gender-based stereotype that a
daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family
and loses all ties with her natal family. Such a presumption is
incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality and
perpetuates historical notions of gender inequality which the
Constitution seeks to eradicate.”
17. In an identical factual situation, more particularly with reference to
the very same scheme of compassionate appointment, the learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in ( WPS.No.3503 of
2020 dated 16.07.2026), after following the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Kulsum Nisha’s case (cited supra), has held that the
daughter is entitled to compassionate appointment.
13/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
18. Therefore, in view of the above detailed discussion, this Court is of
the firm view that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate
appointment, is contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and based upon an erroneous understanding of contemporary social
realities. Hence, this Court finds sufficient grounds to interfere with the
impugned order.
19. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned
order dated 23.11.2022 is hereby set aside. As a concomitant, the respondents
are directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs.
01.09.2026

kv
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes
14/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
To
1. The Head Office,
Rep.by its General Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
No.11, Hemant Basu Sarani,
Kolkata – 700001.
2. The Circle Head,
Circle Office, HRD Department, CO: Chennai,
Punjab National Bank,
nd
PNB Towers, 2 Floor, No.46-49, Royapettah High Road,
Royapettah, Chennai.
3. The Branch Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
K.K.R.Building, 121, Perambur Branch,
Madhavaram High Road,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.
15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )

2026:MHC:3575
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv
W.P.No.33934 of 2022
01.09.2026

16/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 08:38:39 pm )