Compassionate appointment cannot be denied to a widowed daughter by treating her as married.

The petitioner’s mother, Savitri Devi, had obtained compassionate appointment as a Sweeper in the Patna Municipal Corporation after the death of the petitioner’s father.

The petitioner married in 2005, but her husband died on 25 February 2007, following which she returned to and resided with her mother at her parental home.

The petitioner’s mother died in harness on 26 June 2022.

Claiming financial hardship and eligibility for compassionate appointment, the petitioner applied on 13 December 2022.

Her application was forwarded for consideration by the District Compassionate Committee, but was rejected by Memo No. VI-27/2022-3223 dated 21 September 2023, essentially on the ground that she was a married daughter.

The petitioner challenged the rejection and relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Sayara Khatoon @ Shayara Khatoon & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1466.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment could be rejected merely because she was treated as a married daughter, despite being widowed and residing with her parental family.

Whether the rejection order dated 21 September 2023 was contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sayara Khatoon @ Shayara Khatoon concerning exclusion of daughters from consideration for compassionate appointment on the basis of marital status.

Whether the petitioner’s claim was required to be reconsidered by the District Compassionate Committee on its merits.

The Court applied the principle that a daughter cannot be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment merely because of her marital status, and that a classification distinguishing a daughter from a son is constitutionally impermissible.

Relying on Sayara Khatoon @ Shayara Khatoon & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1466, the Court held that there can be no legal presumption that marriage necessarily severs a daughter’s ties with her parental family, and that a claim must be considered on its merits.

The Court also referred to Letter No. 16973 dated 10 December 2014 of the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, and directed consideration in the context of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, under which daughters became coparceners.

The Committee had rejected the petitioner’s application by treating her as a married daughter.

The High Court found that this approach failed to account for the material fact that the petitioner was widowed, had returned to her parental home, and was residing with her mother after her husband’s death.

Applying Sayara Khatoon , the Court held that marital status could not operate as an automatic bar to consideration for compassionate appointment and that the relevant policy could not be applied mechanically to exclude the petitioner.

Since the rejection was founded on an erroneous understanding of her status and an impermissible marital-status distinction, the impugned memo could not be sustained.

The Court nevertheless left the merits of entitlement to be determined by the competent compassionate-appointment committee.

It directed the District Compassionate Committee, under the chairmanship of the District Magistrate, Patna, to reconsider the petitioner’s claim afresh in light of Sayara Khatoon @ Shayara Khatoon and the legal position concerning daughters under the amended Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The Committee was directed to take a decision within three months from production of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of; compassionate appointment was not granted directly.