Married Daughter Cannot Be Denied Compassionate Appointment on Presumption That Marriage Severs Ties With Parental Family; Distinguishing Daughter From Son for Compassionate Appointment Is Unconstitutional: Supreme Court

Case Name: Sayara Khatoon @ Shayara Khatoon & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 23 July 2026

Citation: SLP (C) No. 11623 of 2026

Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Held: The Supreme Court held that a classification differentiating a daughter from a son for compassionate appointment is per se unconstitutional, and the Bihar Government policy restricting eligibility of daughters only to those who are divorced or deserted cannot be sustained in law. The Court rejected the presumption that a daughter, merely upon marriage, severs her ties with her parental family and necessarily resides with her husband. It further observed that a hyper-technical approach based upon marital status cannot be used to deny consideration of an otherwise eligible daughter’s claim for compassionate appointment.

Summary: The appeal arose from the rejection of a request for appointment of appellant No. 2 on compassionate grounds following the death of her father. The claim had been rejected principally on two grounds: an objection raised by the brother of appellant No. 1 and the Bihar Government policy, under which a daughter was eligible for compassionate appointment only if she was divorced or deserted.

Before the Supreme Court, it was pointed out that the brother who had objected to the appointment had earlier furnished a no-objection certificate, and therefore that objection no longer survived. The appellants also challenged the discriminatory effect of the policy, while the State defended it on the premise that a daughter ordinarily leaves her parental home after marriage and that compassionate appointment is governed strictly by the applicable policy.

Rejecting the State’s reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the law cannot presume that marriage permanently disconnects a daughter from her parental family. In the present case, the daughter had specifically stated that although her divorce had not been formally recognised in law, she was residing with and supported by her parental family, including her mother and brother. The Court consequently held that her claim deserved consideration on merits rather than rejection on a rigid interpretation of her marital status.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Patna High Court’s order as well as the order rejecting the compassionate appointment claim, and directed the State authorities to consider the appellant’s case for compassionate appointment on merits within eight weeks from receipt of the Supreme Court’s order.