Marital status cannot disqualify an otherwise eligible daughter from compassionate appointment under a die-in-harness scheme.

Dipankar Saha, a Group-D/Peon employee posted at Rajnagar RD Block, died in harness on 21 June 2018, leaving behind his wife, Smt. Sumitra Karmakar (Saha), and two daughters, including petitioner No. 2, Priya Saha.

The family claimed financial hardship following his death. The petitioner No. 1 initially applied for compassionate appointment for herself or her daughter, and the authorities conducted an enquiry and processed the matter.

Priya Saha was initially married, but her marriage was subsequently dissolved by decree of divorce. The SDM issued a dependency certificate in her favour, and she possessed the requisite educational qualifications for appointment.

The Finance Department, however, regretted the proposal on the ground that no policy permitted compassionate appointment to a married daughter.

The State also sanctioned financial assistance of ₹1,00,000 to the deceased employee’s widow.

The petitioners relied on the judgment in Debashri Chakraborty v. State of Tripura, W.P.(C) No. 562 of 2019, dated 18 December 2019, which declared unconstitutional the exclusion of married daughters from the Die-in-Harness Scheme.

That decision was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 80 of 2020 and batch matters, decided on 8 February 2022.

The Government subsequently amended the scheme by notification dated 6 July 2022 to include eligible married daughters, subject to specified conditions.

Whether the petitioner No. 2 could be denied consideration for compassionate appointment merely because she was married on the date of her father’s death, when the exclusion of married daughters under the earlier scheme had been declared unconstitutional.

Whether the Finance Department’s rejection of the compassionate-appointment proposal on the ground that no policy existed for married daughters was arbitrary and legally sustainable.

Whether the petitioner No. 2 was entitled to compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme, subject to fulfilment of the applicable eligibility conditions.

The Court applied the Tripura Die-in-Harness Scheme notified on 26 December 2015, as modified by the notification dated 19 May 2017, and the subsequent compassionate-appointment scheme notified on 2 March 2019.

The Court relied principally on Debashri Chakraborty v. State of Tripura, W.P.(C) No. 562 of 2019, which held that the provision stating that “married daughter(s) under any circumstances” would not fall within the scheme was unconstitutional and that a married daughter could apply for compassionate appointment on merits.

It further relied on the Division Bench judgment dated 8 February 2022 in W.A. No. 80 of 2020 and connected matters, which held that exclusion of married daughters solely on the basis of marital status was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The notification dated 6 July 2022 amended the scheme to permit consideration of eligible married daughters, subject to conditions relating to separate residence, the husband’s income or employment, and priority to eligible unmarried children.

The Court held that once the exclusionary provision had been declared unconstitutional, the State could not rely on that provision or on the alleged absence of a policy to deny the petitioner’s claim.

The Court rejected the State’s contention that eligibility had to be determined strictly under the 2015 scheme as it stood on the date of Dipankar Saha’s death.

Although the State relied on the fact that Priya Saha was married on 21 June 2018, the exclusion of married daughters under the 19 May 2017 notification had already been declared unconstitutional by the Single Bench and that declaration had been affirmed by the Division Bench.

Consequently, the State could not treat the unconstitutional exclusion as a valid disqualification or contend that no policy existed for appointing married daughters.

The Court also noted that the 24 August 2022 memorandum allowed pending and similarly situated cases to be considered under the amended scheme dated 6 July 2022, without restricting such benefit only to cases already pending before the Court.

Since Priya Saha possessed the requisite qualifications, had been certified as dependent, and the respondents identified no other disqualification, the Finance Department’s rejection was held to be arbitrary and unsustainable.

The Court held that Priya Saha could not be denied compassionate appointment merely because she was a married daughter of the deceased employee.

The respondents were directed to provide her compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme, according to her educational qualifications and applicable policy, within four months from the date of the judgment.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, along with any pending application.