The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the rejection orders passed against a petitioner seeking compassionate appointment after the death of her father in service. The Court held that married daughters are entitled to be considered for such employment, and income assessment must be made fairly by including them within the deceased’s family unit. Significantly, the Court observed that excluding married daughters while computing family income is “arbitrary and discriminatory,” perpetuating gender inequality.
The petitioner’s father, a Junior Basic Trained Teacher, died while in service. He was survived by his wife and three married daughters. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in 2018, but her claim was rejected by the Education Department on the ground that the policy did not provide for appointment of married daughters.
Following the High Court’s ruling in Mamta Devi v. State of H.P., which recognized the entitlement of married daughters subject to eligibility criteria, the petitioner’s claim was reconsidered. However, it was again rejected, this time citing delay in filing the application and excess family income. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the initial rejection in 2018 was itself based on an illegal ground, as the exclusion of married daughters was later struck down by the Court. The petitioner could not be penalized for delay when the policy itself was discriminatory. It was further contended that the income assessment by the respondents was flawed, as it treated the family size as two members instead of four, thereby artificially inflating the per capita income.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua noted that the reasons assigned by the State were untenable. The Court held that the delay could not be attributed to the petitioner, as she had applied once the law was clarified in Mamta Devi. Importantly, the Bench found the State’s computation of income unsustainable, citing the precedent in Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P., where it was held that, “Simply because the daughter is married, this does not mean that she loses her identity as a member of her father’s family. To exclude her for income calculation is arbitrary and discriminatory. Recognizing such exclusion would make the Court a party to gender inequality.”
The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment policies must be interpreted in a manner that furthers social justice rather than reinforcing gender-based exclusion.
Setting aside the impugned orders, the Court directed the State to reconsider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment within six weeks in accordance with law. It clarified that income assessment must treat the family size as four members and not arbitrarily exclude the petitioner due to her marital status.
Case Title: Savita vs. State of H.P. and Ors.
Case No.: CWP No. 3070 of 2023
Coram: Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Onkar Jairath, Anshul Jairath, Piyush Mehta
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Anup Rattan (Advocate General), L.N.Sharma, Vishwadeep Sharma
Picture Source :
