[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Mani Machha vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 3 February, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.32107 of 2011
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950.
----
Mani Machha .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Petitioner - M/s. Samarendra Pattanaik,
B.R. Kar, P. Panda &
J. Kar, Advocates
For Opp. Parties - Mrs. Suman Pattanayak, AGA
---
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 03.02.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S DIXIT, J.
To set the tone of this judgment, we reproduce the words of
Ruth Bader Ginsberg (1933-2020), Associate Justice of U.S
Supreme Court in Kahn v. Shevin1:
1. 416 U.S. 351.
"...overriding objective must be an end to role delineation
by gender, and in its place, conduct at every school level,
and later in the job market, signaling that in all fields of
endeavor females are welcomed as enthusiastically as
males are."
2. Petitioner, a poor daughter of a deceased-Mazdoor, is
grieving before the Writ Court against Orissa Administrative
Tribunal's order dated 08.11.2011 whereby her O.A. No.835 of
2011 has been negatived. In the said O.A., she had called in
question the order dated 09.06.2011 by which her claim for
compassionate appointment was turned down by the authorities
on the ground that she has married during the pendency of her
claim.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that
the marriage as such should not disable a person from claiming
compassionate appointment; the impugned order violates gender
equality, inasmuch as married sons of deceased-employee can
stake such claims. This aspect having not been properly
considered by the Tribunal, its order is liable to be voided
coupled with a direction to OPs to accord rehabilitatory
appointment to the petitioner, argues the counsel.
4. Learned AGA appearing for the answering Opposite
Parties opposes the petition making submission in justification of
the impugned orders contending that the compassionate
appointment is governed by the provisions of Odisha Civil
Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990; in the definition
clause of these Rules, the compassionate appointment avails to
the bereaved family members on the death of bread winning
employee; a married daughter is not within the said definition
and therefore, the impugned order is inexplicable. So contending,
she seeks dismissal of petition.
5. FOUNDANTIONAL FACTS:
5.1. One Mr. Hari Machha was working under Chief
Construction Engineer, Pateru Irrigation Project during the
period between 15.07.1969 & 19.12.1999 uninterruptedly and sans
any complaint whatsoever. Arithmetically, this service is more
than thirty years, is not disputed. He died on 20.12.1999 leaving
the widow & the sole daughter, i.e., petitioner. The widow having
consented filing affidavit, petitioner had staked her claim for
compassionate appointment by making an application dated
21.08.2000.
5.2. The Engineer-in-Chief, vide letters dated 26.08.2008 and
26.10.2009, had conveyed the approval for compassionate
appointment of the Petitioner. The Additional Secretary to
Government, vide letter dated 06.04.2010, conveyed the approval
granted by the Secretary to the Government for such
appointment subject to production & verification of filed
documents enlisted therein. However, the appointment was
denied on the ground that the Petitioner contracted marriage in
2006. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner knocked at the doors of
Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.835 of 2011, which
came to be negatived by the impugned order that is put in
challenge by way of judicial review, at our hands.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having
perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant
indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
6.1. Father of the petitioner died in harness having put in more
than thirty years of continuous and spotless service. Petitioner's
claim for compassionate appointment duly made in time came to
be rejected only on the ground that she contracted marriage in
2006. This is absolutely obnoxious, to say the least, because:
immediately after the death in harness, the application for
compassionate appointment was made; the Apex Court in a
catena of decisions has iterated & reiterated that claims of the
kind should be treated on a war-footing so that bereaved of an
employee dying in harness will have something to fall back upon
vide Sushma Gosain v. Union of India2. When the bread winner
dies, his family would be in distress both financially &
emotionally. Therefore, as a socio-welfare measure, Rules of the
kind do obtain. Secondly, a son or daughter of a deceased-
2. AIR 1989 SC 1976.
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 &
tardy. It is not that the authorities had told the petitioner to defer
her marriage till after her claim for compassionate appointment is
decided.
6.2. There is force in the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the claim for compassionate appointment being
regulated by the 1990 Rules, has to be decided keeping in view the
scenario that obtained when the claim was made, subject to all
just exceptions. Admittedly, the claim was made on 21.08.2000,
the bread winner having breathed his last on 20.12.1999.
Petitioner was not married for more than six years after staking
her claim. These Rules do not say that the claimant, who is
otherwise eligible & qualified, would cease to be so if marriage is
contracted subsequently. After all, right to marry, subject to
applicable conditions, is an important facet of fundamental right
to life & liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India vide Lata Singh v. State of UP3. Therefore, the 1990 Rules
should be construed consistent with this. After all, a daughter
does not cease to be daughter after the marriage and she has an
obligation to look after her dependent natal family vide Dr. (Mrs.)
Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai4.
6.3. Compassionate Appointments are regulated by the 1990
Rules and therefore, to the extent of regulation, the right to claim
such appointment becomes justiciable. State cannot argue that it is
only a privilege that cannot be agitated in the Court of law. If all
conditions prescribed by the Rules are duly complied with,
authorities cannot deny compassionate appointment. Clause (b) of
Rule 2 of 1990 Rules defines the term 'family members' and the
same reads as under:
"(b) Family Members‟ shall mean and include the following
members in order of preference -
3. AIR 2006 SC 2522.
4. (1987) 2 SCC 278.
(i) Wife/Husband;
(ii) Sons or step sons or sons legally adopted through a
registered deed;
(iii) Unmarried daughters and unmarried step daughter;
(iv) [Widowed daughter or daughter-in-law residing
permanently with the affected family.]
(v) Unmarried or widowed sister permanently residing with
the affected family;
(vi) Brother of unmarried Government servant who was
wholly dependent on such Government servant at the
time of death"
Sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of Rule 2 of 1990 Rules is relevant for
our consideration. Very notably, the term 'unmarried daughters'
is employed in contra distinction to the term 'daughters who do
not continue to be unmarried'. In other words, if the Rule Maker
intended that a candidate, who contracts marriage after staking
claim and during its pendency, shall become disentitled to such
appointment. Therefore, the authorities could not have rejected
petitioner's claim. Even this aspect has not been discussed by the
Tribunal. Be that as it may.
6.4. The world is accelerating towards gender equality. Through
the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 19485
injuncts the State parties to practice equality. Articles 1 & 2 of the
same read as under:
"Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal and dignity
and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and
should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2 : Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms...
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status...."
The Makers of our Constitution have enshrined inter alia gender
neutrality vide Article 14 in general and Articles 15 & 16 in
particular. Our Smrutikaaraas said yatra naarayaastu pujyante
ramante tatra devatah; yatraitaastu na pujyante sarvaastatra falaah
kriyaah nearly meaning that where women are honoured, divinity
dwells there; where dishonoured, all actions, no matter how
noble, remain unfruitful. For the purpose of compassionate
appointment, women, i.e., daughters constitute one homogenous
class and that excluding the married daughters would create an
5. General Assembly resolution 217 A.
artificial class within the class and therefore, would fall foul of
doctrine of equality enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
Articles 10 & 11 of Part III of CONVENTION ON THE
ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST WOMEN, 1979 (CEDAW)6 to which India is a
signatory, proscribes discriminatory treatment of women on the
ground of marriage, inter alia in matters of profession &
employment. The Article 11(1)(c) reads as under:
"...(c) The right to free choice of profession and
employment, the right to promotion, job security and all
benefits and conditions of service and the right to receive
vocational training and retraining, including
apprenticeships, advanced vocational training and
recurrent training;"
6.5. The FOURTH WORLD CONFERENCE ON WOMEN,
BEIJING DECLARATION, 1995 vide Entry 26 ushers in a new era
of gender equality in the realm of public employment, amongst
other aspect. The COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN7,
6 UNGA Resolution 34/180.
7 Commission on the Status of Women, CSW 70 (2026).
while addressing the gaps in implementation of the Beijing
Declaration, has prescribed the upcoming theme as under:
"Ensuring and strengthening access to justice for all women and
girls, including by promoting inclusive and equitable legal
systems, eliminating discriminatory laws, policies, and practices,
and addressing structural barriers."
In Kesavananda Bharati8 case, the Apex Court observed that the
International Conventions of the kind, not inconsistent with our
domestic system would become a part of our law by virtue of
Article 51 of the Constitution. Not only deference need be shown
to them, but adherence in letter & spirit is expected. Sub-section 1
of Section 20 of the India Succession Act, 1925 broadly enacts that
marriage per se cannot be a disability or entitlement qua property
rights. It has the following text:
"20(1) No person shall, by marriage, acquire any interest in the
property of the person whom he or she marries or become
incapable of doing any act in respect of his or her own property
which he or she could have done if unmarried..."
If marriage is not a disability for sons of a deceased-employee to
stake claim for compassionate appointment, it cannot be a
8 AIR 1973 SC 1461.
disability for daughters too. An idea otherwise would offend the
institutions of society such as family, marriage, etc. as obtaining in
the civilized world.
6.6. It is relevant to mention what M. Nagaprasanna, J, in
Bhuvaneshwari V Puranik v. State of Karnataka9 observed:
"Marriage does not determine the continuance of the
relationship of a child with the parent, whether the son or a
daughter...
14.4. In all the illustrations the offer of appointment or its denial
is on the basis of gender as the sons of a deceased Government
servant may well be married but are not denied appointment on
the ground of marriage. If the daughters of a Government
servant are married as marriage is a social commitment of a
parent and in furtherance of such social commitment the
daughter is given in marriage becomes ineligible to seek
appointment in terms of the Rules. Therefore, the Rules insofar
as it creates division of the same object of appointment on the
basis of gender by granting appointment to a son without any
qualification and denying the same to a daughter with the
qualification of "marriage" cannot but be held to be
discriminatory. Marriage does not determine the continuance of
the relationship of a child with the parent, whether son or a
daughter. Son continues to be a son both before and after
marriage and a daughter also should continue to be a daughter
both before and after marriage. This relationship does not get
effaced by the fact of marriage, as marriage does not severe the
relationship of the daughter with the parent. These relationships
are neither governed nor defined by marital status. This notion
9 AIR Online 2020 Kar. 2303.
on which the Rule is framed cannot answer the tests of Articles
14 and 15 of the Constitution of India."
The above view received acceptance of the Apex Court in The
State of Karnataka v. C.N. Apporva Shree10 wherein it is observed
as under:
"...We give our full imprimatur to the reasoning of the High
Court, more so, as even the rule in question relied upon by the
petitioner to deny a married daughter a job on compassionate
grounds while permitting it to a married son, has been quashed
in the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Bhuvaneshwari
V. Purani v. State of Karnataka - (2021) 1 AKR 444 [AIR
Online 2020 Kar 2303]. The Special Leave Petition is
dismissed..."
6.7. What irks us more also needs to be stated: The Engineer-in-
Chief had sent the proposal for compassionate appointment of the
petitioner seeking approval of the Government, vide letters dated
26.08.2008 & 26.10.2009. The Additional Secretary to the
Government granted approval to the said proposal, and that was
conveyed to the Engineer-in-Chief by the Additional Secretary to
the Government vide letter dated 06.04.2010. It is not that, the
authorities did not have the knowledge of petitioner's marriage,
10 SLP(C) No.20166/2021, disposed off on 17.12.2021.
when all this happened. If that be so, how she was denied
compassionate appointment remains shrouded in mystery. What
an enormity of mindlessness, the Government and its
functionaries conduct the public affairs with, would bewilder any
sensible mind. What difficulty the bereaved family of deceased-
employee underwent all these twenty-five years can only be
imagined. In our view, this is a fit case for awarding exemplary
costs. However, being swayed away by the submissions of
learned AGA, we reluctantly restrain ourselves from awarding
any. But, if further delay is brooked in issuing appointment order,
costs need to become payable.
In the above circumstances, this Petition succeeds; a
writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated
08.11.2011 (Annexure-10) and the Office Order dated
09.06.2011 (Annexure-8) coupled with a writ of mandamus to
OPs.1 & 2 to grant compassionate appointment to the
petitioner within eight weeks. Delay would attract additional
levy of Rs.500/- per day shall be payable to her. That amount
be recovered personally from the erring officials of the
department, in accordance with law.
The compliance report to be filed before the Registrar
General of this Court within two weeks following the
compliance.
We place on record our deep appreciation for the able
research & assistance rendered by Law Clerk-cum-Research
Assistant Mr. Mohammed Nihad Sharief.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 3rd Day of February, 2026/Bijay/Sarbani
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,CUTTACK
Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:18:51
