2026:HHC:34541 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4307 of 202 6 Decided on: 17.08.2026 Smt. Savitri Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Hitesh Bali, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash and set aside the Impugned Order No. PWE-82-1- Apptt. (HZ)/ES-I-7300-24 dated 22.11.2025 (including the endorsements dated 21.11.2025 and 27.12.2025) (Annexure P-3), whereby the Petitioner's legitimate claim for compassionate appointment was arbitrarily and illegally rejected on the ground of her marital status. (ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the Respondents to immediately consider the case of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh, recognizing her eligibility as an unmarried dependent on the date of her initial application (30.09.2014). (iii) In the alternative, Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:34541 Respondents to process the Petitioner's claim strictly in accordance with the enabling provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 18.05.2022 (Annexure P-5) read with the binding judgments of this Hon'ble Court in Mamta Devi (2020) and Savita (2025), without raising any objection regarding the date of her marriage or artificially excluding her from the family income calculation. (iv) Direct the Respondents to offer the appointment to the Petitioner against an available Class-III or Class-IV post within a strictly time- bound period (e.g., within four weeks from the date of the order), along with all consequential benefits deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court. (v) Allow the present writ petition with exemplary costs in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondents for forcing a destitute dependent into prolonged and unnecessary litigation.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-3, office order dated 22.11.2023, in terms whereof, the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was married at the time when her case was considered for the purpose of offer of appointment on compassionate basis. 3. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the father of the petitioner, Shri Rajender Kumar, who was serving as a Beldar, died in harness on 28.09.2012. The petitioner herein applied for appointment on compassionate basis on 30.09.2014. At the time when she applied for appointment on compassionate basis, she was unmarried. The case of the petitioner 3 2026:HHC:34541 was considered by the Department for offer of appointment on compassionate basis, but it was rejected in terms of the impugned order on the ground that at the time of consideration of her case, the petitioner had solemnized marriage. As per Department, the instructions issued by the Finance Department dated 18.05.2022 in terms whereof, married daughters were rendered eligible for consideration for appointment on compassionate basis could not be applied to the petitioner as they were prospective in nature. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the authorities is not sustainable in law for more than one reason. 5. In the present case, the father of the petitioner died in harness on 28.09.2012. It is settled law that the case for compassionate appointment has to be construed/considered as per the policy which was in vogue at the time when the death of the employee took place. However, in the present case, the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was considered by the Department as per the compassionate policy which was introduced by the Department in the year 2019, which renders the order bad in law. 6. Besides this, the petitioner was unmarried when she applied for appointment on compassionate basis on 30.09.2014. No 4 2026:HHC:34541 offer of appointment was made to her by the Department and in the interregnum, she solemnized marriage on 10.11.2016. 7. According to the respondents, as at the relevant time, the married daughters were not eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate basis, therefore, the petitioner cannot be offered compassionate appointment. However, while passing this order, the authorities erred in not appreciating that the petitioner was unmarried when her father died and when she even applied for appointment. In fact, she solemnized marriage after two years as from the date of applying for compassionate appointment. 8. This Court in CWP No. 12726 of 2025, titled Shyama Kumari vs. State of H.P. and others has held that if an unmarried daughter applies for appointment after the demise of her father or mother, then her eligibility for the post has to be seen vis-a-vis her credentials as on the date when she applied for the appointment and her marital status, which subsequently might have changed, cannot act to her detriment. The relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted herein below:- “22. This Court is of the considered view that if an unmarried daughter applies for appointment after the demise of her father or mother, then her eligibility for the post has to be seen vis- a-vis her credentials on the date when she applied for such appointment. It is not the case of the Department that except for the fact that the petitioner solemnized marriage before appointment was offered to her, she was otherwise ineligible for appointment on 5 2026:HHC:34541 compassionate basis. 23. Had it been the case that unmarried son of the deceased had applied for the appointment and had solemnized marriage in between, then would his appointment been cancelled by the Authority as has been done in the case of this petitioner, on the ground that he solemnized marriage in between? The answer obviously is in the negative. That being the case, a daughter cannot be discriminated against in a similar fact situation. 24. The communication addressed by Executive Engineer, Chopal Division (Annexure P-4), dated 19.09.2022, per se is contrary to record. The Executive Engineer mentions in this communication that the petitioner had submitted a fake certificate at the time of submission of her case for employment on compassionate grounds about her marital status that she was unmarried. Executive Engineer erred in not appreciating that the marital status of the petitioner as on the date when she applied for the post was that of an unmarried girl. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the Executive Engineer could have observed that petitioner had submitted a fake certificate at the time of submission of her case. 25. This Court again reiterates that the status of the daughter has to be seen as on the date when she applies for the post and if on that particular date she is unmarried, then later on, if she is found eligible to be offered appointment, the same cannot be refused to her on the ground that in the interregnum, she solemnized marriage. 26. A daughter cannot be expected to wait for years and years for the Department to take a call on her representation for 6 2026:HHC:34541 compassionate appointment and not solemnize marriage in between. Solemnization of marriage after the date when a daughter applies for appointment on compassionate basis, cannot alter her status of that being an unmarried daughter who applied for appointment when her case is considered or when compassionate appointment is offered to her. In the present case, though appointment was offered in the year 2022, but then there are instances where cases of appointment on compassionate basis are pending before Authorities for years. 27. As far as Condition No.15 of the appointment letter is concerned, this Court reads it down by holding that in case of a daughter who applies for the post while unmarried, her status shall be construed to be that of an unmarried daughter, when her case is considered and appointment is to be offered to her, irrespective of the fact whether she has solemnized marriage in the interregnum or not. The marital status certificate, if any, to be produced by such like candidate, shall be one relating back to the date when she applied for the post and not to the date when appointment is being offered to her. Moot issue is answered accordingly. 28. As far as the impugned order passed by the Authority is concerned, may be on facts the Authority was right that the fact situation in the case of Mamta Devi was different as compared to the present petitioner, but then the Authority should have taken into consideration the fact that herein the issue which required consideration was whether an unmarried daughter was rendered ineligible to be offered appointment if she solemnized marriage after she applied for the post. It is settled law that in the case of compassionate appointment, it is the policy in vogue when an 7 2026:HHC:34541 employee dies, which has to be taken into consideration while deciding the case of the Kith and Kin for the grant of compassionate appointment. On the same analogy, the status of the Kith and Kin has also to be construed as one on the date when he or she applies for the post in question. As this extremely important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Authority while passing order dated 09.04.2025, the order is bad in law and is accordingly quashed and set aside.” 9. In the present case also, the petitioner was unmarried when she applied for the post. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate basis in the year 2014 and solemnized her marriage in the year 2016. This demonstrates that as on the date when she applied for appointment on compassionate basis, no offer of appointment was made to her for two years until her marriage. Now, the Department cannot expect an unmarried daughter, who has applied for appointment on compassionate basis, not to solemnize marriage for years under the fear that the same will render her ineligible for appointment on compassionate basis. 10. In fact, rendering a daughter, who applies for appointment on compassionate basis, upon demise of her parent ineligible for compassionate appointment on the ground that in the interregnum she has solemnized marriage, is completely discriminatory as far as a daughter is concerned. Ordinarily, it is either the son or the daughter, who apply for appointment on compassionate basis after the demise of the parent. This Court fails 8 2026:HHC:34541 to understand that if a son is not rendered ineligible on account of solemnizing marriage for appointment on compassionate basis, then why a daughter is being discriminated against on this count. The possibility of a son, who might be unmarried at the time when he applies for the post in issue, settling in the house of his in-laws post solemnization of his marriage, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, this analogy that after marriage, a girl becomes a member of some other family can be no ground to discriminate against her for appointment on compassionate basis on this count. 11. Otherwise also, as has been held by this Court in Shyama Kumari vs. State of H.P. and others (supra), the marital status of a lady/daughter, who applies for the post has to be construed as on the date when she has applied for the post. If on the date of application, the daughter was unmarried, then subsequent change of her marital status will not become an impediment in considering her case for the purpose of appointment on compassionate basis. 12. This is more so in light of the fact that it is not as if the cases for compassionate appointment are taken up for consideration and decided by the Departments expeditiously. Even if we look at the facts of this case, the father of the petitioner died in the year 2012. The petitioner applied for appointment in the year 2014 and solemnized marriage in the year 2016. Thereafter, her case was considered and rejected in terms of the impugned order for 9 2026:HHC:34541 appointment on compassionate basis in the year 2025, after a period of about 11 years from the date of hear application. 13. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.11.2025 (including endorsements 21.11.2025 and 27.12.2025) (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis by treating her status as that of an unmarried lady. It is apparent from the impugned order that there was no other impediment in offering of appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis, except the factum of her marital status having been changed. Accordingly, this Court hopes and expects that upon reconsideration, appointment on compassionate basis shall be offered to the petitioner by the Department expeditiously. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 17 , 2026 (narender)