The Andhra Pradesh High Court highlighted that daughters remain a part of their parents’ family for life, whether or not they have married. A daughter’s marriage does not terminate her status as a member of her parents’ family, Justice K Manmadha Rao emphasised. The Court criticised a 1999 State policy that extended different treatment to sons and daughters when it came to compassionate appointments, depending on whether the daughter was married.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Amaravati: The Andhra Pradesh High Court underscored the enduring place daughters hold within their parents’ family, regardless of marital status. Justice K Manmadha Rao stated that a daughter’s marriage does not dissolve her status as a member of her parental family.
“The sons and daughters, whether they are unmarried or married, they are part of the family of their parents for the entire life. Just because the daughter got married, saying that she is not a member of her parent/s family is nothing but (atrocious). Because of her marriage, the daughter would not cease her status as a member of the family of her parents,”
-the Court declared in its October 18 judgment.
The Court addressed this issue while reviewing a State policy that appeared to differentiate between married sons and married daughters in matters of compassionate appointments. Compassionate appointments allow a family member of a deceased government employee to secure a job as a means of financial support for the family. Under the current policy, married daughters faced restrictions not imposed on married sons.
“Just because the daughter got married, saying that she is not a member of her parent/s family is nothing but (atrocious),”
-the Andhra Pradesh High Court asserted.
This case involved a petition from a married daughter who had been denied a compassionate appointment following her father’s death in 2013. Her father had served as a sweeper at a temple, and after his passing, she sought his former position. However, the executive officer managing her request required her to provide a divorce certificate, as she applied for the position due to her husband’s desertion.
Unable to locate her estranged husband for the certificate, the petitioner re-applied in 2021, formally requesting her father’s previous sweeper role on compassionate grounds. When her application went unanswered, she approached the High Court for redress.
During the proceedings, the Court was apprised of a 1999 State order permitting married daughters of deceased government employees to receive compassionate appointments under specific conditions: no competing claims from other family members and the daughter’s dependency on the deceased employee.
The Court found this order’s requirements discriminatory, as no such restrictions applied to married sons, highlighting this inequity as fundamentally biased.
“Married daughters are deemed ineligible solely because they are married. Showing discrimination toward a ‘married daughter’ for her marital status, while no such ineligibility applies to a ‘married son,’ appears arbitrary and discriminatory,”
-the Court observed.
In its decision, the High Court deemed the denial of a compassionate appointment to the petitioner—a married daughter—both unlawful and unjust. As a result, the Court directed the temple authorities to appoint the petitioner as a sweeper or in an equivalent role, retroactively from the date of her father’s passing, granting her all associated service benefits.
However, the Court clarified that-
“the petitioner is not entitled to claim monetary benefit, as she was not appointed to the post on the principle of ‘NO WORK – NO PAY’.”
The petitioner was represented by Advocate DV Sasidhar, while Standing Counsel K Madhva Reddy appeared on behalf of the State’s Endowments Department.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Marriage
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
