Court holds that marriage does not automatically sever a daughter’s dependency on her deceased parental family; directs Punjab National Bank to appoint petitioner on compassionate grounds.
In a landmark judgment delivered on September 1, 2026, the Madras High Court has set aside the Punjab National Bank’s order denying compassionate appointment to G. Chitra, the married daughter of the deceased employee P. Govindasamy, ruling that marital status alone cannot determine dependency on the parental family. The court emphasized that assumptions based on marriage that a daughter ceases to be dependent on her parents are constitutionally impermissible and violate principles of gender equality.
The petitioner’s father, who was serving as a Head Cashier with the Union Bank of India (later merged with Punjab National Bank), passed away in 2015. Chitra applied for compassionate appointment under the bank’s scheme, claiming to be wholly dependent on her father. However, the bank rejected her application in 2022, citing her marriage in 2013 as a reason to deny dependency status.
Challenging this decision, the petitioner argued that she was a housewife without independent income and that her physical residence away from her father’s home post his death (due to water and drainage issues) should not negate her dependency. She also contended that the bank wrongly applied amendments to the compassionate appointment scheme made after her father’s death, contrary to Supreme Court rulings mandating that the policy applicable at the time of death must be used.
The bank defended its decision, asserting that compassionate appointments are exceptional and must strictly follow scheme guidelines requiring “wholly dependent” status, which they claimed the petitioner did not satisfy due to her marriage and non-cohabitation.
The court, presided by Justice C. Kumarappan, extensively reviewed Supreme Court precedents including the recent Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. case (2026 INSC 617), which explicitly rejected the notion that marriage severs a daughter’s dependency on her parental family. The court noted that the bank’s reliance on marital status as a determinant was an outdated gender stereotype incompatible with constitutional guarantees of equality.
Further, the court reiterated the binding principle from State of M.P. v. Ashish Awasthi (2022) that compassionate appointment claims must be assessed according to the scheme prevailing on the date of the employee’s death, disallowing retrospective application of later amendments.
Finding the bank’s rejection arbitrary and discriminatory, the Madras High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to appoint G. Chitra on compassionate grounds within eight weeks.
This judgment reinforces evolving jurisprudence against gender-based discrimination in employment benefits and affirms that dependency is a factual matter to be determined on merits, not presumptions based on marital status. It also clarifies that compassionate appointment schemes must be applied prospectively and fairly, ensuring justice for dependents of deceased employees.
Bottom Line:
Compassionate Appointment - Marriage of a daughter does not automatically sever her dependency on her deceased parental family. Dependency is a factual determination and cannot be presumed solely on the basis of marital status.
Statutory provision(s):
Compassionate Appointment Scheme dated 19.09.2014, HRMD Circular No.495 dated 23.03.2020, HRMD Circular No.550 dated 09.02.2021
G.Chitra v. Head Office, Punjab National Bank, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971421
