The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that a married daughter must be considered part of the deceased employee’s family when calculating family income for the purpose of compassionate appointment. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua quashed orders by the state government that had rejected a married daughter’s claim by miscalculating the family size and income, and directed the authorities to reconsider her case within six weeks.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Ms. Savita, is the daughter of the late Sh. Shyam Prakash, who was a Junior Basic Trained Teacher in the state’s Education Department and died in harness on April 6, 2012. The deceased was survived by his wife and three married daughters.
In 2018, the petitioner applied for employment on compassionate grounds. Her claim was rejected by the respondents on November 12, 2018, on the sole ground that the policy at the time did not contain a provision for granting such employment to a married daughter.
Following this rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court in a writ petition (CWP No. 826 of 2021). The court, taking cognizance of its earlier decision in Mamta Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. (CWP No. 3100 of 2020), which held married daughters eligible for compassionate appointment, directed the respondents on November 25, 2022, to reconsider Ms. Savita’s case in light of that judgment.
Renewed Rejections by the State
The state authorities examined the petitioner’s case afresh but rejected it again on April 20, 2023. The new ground for rejection was that the family’s income of ₹2,20,000 per annum exceeded the prescribed limit of ₹1,25,000 for a family of two members.
During the pendency of the current writ petition, the court directed another reconsideration. The authorities rejected the claim for a third time on September 22, 2023, citing two reasons: first, that the claim was delayed as it was filed six years after her father’s death, and second, reiterating that the family income was above the prescribed limit.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua found both grounds for the latest rejection to be untenable and fallacious.
On the Issue of Delay: The court observed that the petitioner’s delay in applying was understandable given the respondents’ own stance that married daughters were ineligible under the policy. The judgment noted, “It is the pleaded case of the respondents that according to them, married daughters were not eligible for employment on compassionate grounds under the relevant policy. Perhaps for such reason, the petitioner had not applied for employment on compassionate grounds immediately after the death of her father in the year 2012.” The court held that since the petitioner had applied after the law was clarified in the Mamta Devi case and her case was then considered on merits pursuant to court directions, the claim could not be dismissed on grounds of delay.
On the Calculation of Family Income: The court deemed the state’s second reason for rejection as “fallacious.” The respondents had calculated the income limit by considering the deceased’s family to consist of only two members. The court, however, stated it was an “admitted position that deceased’s family consisted of four members i.e. his wife and three married daughters.”
To support this view, the court relied heavily on the precedent set in Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. (CWPOA No. 6065 of 2019), which held that excluding a married daughter from the family for income assessment is arbitrary. The judgment quoted the Rakesh Kumar decision at length:
“Simply because the daughter is married, this does not means that she loses her identity as member of the family of her father… In case the criteria fixed by the Government is taken to its logical conclusion, then the factual position is that a girl by virtue of marriage loses her identity both as a daughter of her father as well as a member of her husband’s family, for the purpose of being counted as a family member… This in the considered view of the Court is arbitrary and discriminatory. There is no rationale as to why a daughter after marriage should not be counted as member of the family for the purpose of assessing the annual family income for compassionate appointment.”
The court noted that an appeal against the Rakesh Kumar judgment had been dismissed by a Division Bench and a subsequent SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court, though the question of law was left open.
Applying the state’s own policy of March 7, 2019, which sets a maximum income ceiling of ₹2,25,000 for a family of four, the court found that the petitioner’s combined family income was within this limit.
Final Decision
Concluding that the reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s claim were not tenable, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders. The respondents have been directed to “consider the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds afresh.” The court has mandated that this exercise be completed and an appropriate order passed in accordance with law within six weeks.
