2025:HHC:2209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1275 of 2021 Decided on: 09.01.2025 Khem Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “(i). That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashed and set-aside the impugned communication dated 29 10.2020 (Annexure P-5), in the interest of justice (ii). That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as beldar on compassionate grounds in the respondent department, from the date of his having made the application for appointment on compassionate grounds, with all consequential benefits.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father, who was serving as a Beldar with the respondent-Department, died in harness on 21.03.2015. The petitioner thereafter applied for grant of appointment on compassionate basis, however, as the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Authority on the basis of income 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:2209 criteria vide Annexure P-5, dated 29.10.2020, the petitioner approached this Court. 3. The reasons as spelled out from the stand of the respondents as well the affidavit filed in compliance to order dated 20.11.2024, passed by this Court, by the Superintending Engineer, Joginder Nagar, Circle, HPPPWD, Joginder Nagar, dated 13.12.2024, demonstrate that the case of the petitioner stands rejected on the ground that deceased Chint Ram left behind his wife, his son and two daughters, namely, Kanta Devi and Roshni Devi, who were married before the death of Chint Ram. As per the respondents, as the married daughters were not dependent upon the deceased at the time of his death, therefore, the family was construed to be comprising of petitioner and his widowed mother and they were not found fulfilling the income criteria in terms of the Compassionate Policy. The respondents have also referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court, passed in CWP No.4072 of 2021, titled Anurodh Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 23.04.2024. 4. Rebuttal to the said affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and the petitioner has also appended with the rebuttal the judgment of this Court passed in CWPOA No.6065 of 2019, titled Rakesh Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 02.06.2022, in which this Court has held that the married daughters are also to be taken into consideration for 3 2025:HHC:2209 construing the number of family members so as to assess whether a family falls within the income criteria or not. 5. In the course of the adjudication of CWPOA No.6065 of 2019, this Court had assigned the following reasons by holding as to why a married daughter cannot be ignored from being construed as a family member:- “5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the pleadings as well as the documents on record as also the record produced by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the respondents of denying appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds is harsh. The Court is making this observation for the reason that it is the case of the respondent- Department itself that had the income of the individual member of the deceased family been assessed at Rs.31,250/- or less, then the petitioner would have been eligible for appointment on compassionate basis, but as the income was found to be Rs.31,707/-, i.e., about Rs.450/- more than the cut off limit per member, therefore, the case of the petitioner stands rejected. 6. This Court wants to make an observation that when the deceased was survived by his wife, two sons and a daughter, then not considering the daughter to be a part of the family of the deceased so as to assess as to whether the per person annual income of the family members of the deceased falls within the prescribed limit or not, is arbitrary. Simply because the daughter is 4 2025:HHC:2209 married, this does not means that she loses her identity as member of the family of her father. The Court is making this observation for the reason that it is not as if on account of the marriage of the sons of the deceased, the wives of the sons of the deceased stand included as family members for this purpose. 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 to assess the income of the members of the deceased family for compassionate appointment. 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. In case the criteria so fixed by the Government is given the stamp of approval by the Court, then the Court will also become a party to this gender inequality, being practised by the State. Therefore, in these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the annual family income of the deceased in the present case has to be assessed by considering the strength of the family to be four, i.e., wife, two sons and a daughter. The Policy has to be read down as such. Now, if the number of the family is taken to be as four, then if a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- is divided by four, there is no dispute that individual annual income per family member comes to less than Rs.31,250/-.” 6. Thus, the reason which weighed with the Court while 5 2025:HHC:2209 passing the said judgment was that it was a very precarious situation that a daughter after marriage neither was to be counted as member of the parental family for the purpose of assessing the annual family income for compassionate appointment, nor she as per the Policy of the Government, was to be construed as the member of the family of her husband for construing the eligibility of the family for assessing whether the family fulfilled the income eligibility criteria or not. This Court, in fact held that if the Policy of the Government, as it was, was approved by the Court, then the Court would itself become a member to this gender inequality, being practised by the State. The Court stands informed that this judgment has attained finality as the Letters Patent Appeal filed against the judgment was dismissed by Hon’ble Division Bench and so was the fate of the Special Leave Petition filed by the State. 7. A perusal of the judgment relied upon by the State of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in CWP No.4072 of 2021 demonstrates that neither learned counsel for the petitioner therein nor the State brought to the notice of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench the judgment of this Court in CWPOA No.6065 of 2019 (supra), which stood decided before the passing of the said judgment, nor this fact was brought to the notice of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench that the judgment in CWPOA No.6065 of 2019 had attained finality. 8. In these circumstances, the stand of the respondents that the married daughters of the deceased are not to be taken into 6 2025:HHC:2209 consideration for considering the strength of the family cannot be accepted and the same is hereby held to be bad in law. 9. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction that the respondent/Department shall take a fresh call on the eligibility of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment by taking the strength of the family to be four, i.e. the widow of the deceased employee, petitioner-son and two married daughters and thereafter, take a call on the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate basis as per his qualifications etc. In case the petitioner is otherwise found eligible for grant of compassionate appointment, then appropriate orders be passed in this regard in accordance with law keeping in view the quota prescribed for grant of appointment on compassionate basis. 10. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 09, 2025 (Rishi)