IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.83 of 2026 Date of Decision: 02.01.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Nitasha Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Kuldeep Chand Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent- State. Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who is a married daughter of deceased employee, is aggrieved by order dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-4), whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on the basis that she is debarred from claiming compassionate appointment in terms of Policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on account of her being married. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3100 of 2020, titled as Mamta Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others and in CWP No.3070 of 2023, titled as Savita Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., states that in terms of afore judgments, married woman is also entitled for compassionate appointment, as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be considered in light of mandate contained in the afore judgments. 3. After having carefully perused aforesaid judgments, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3, fairly admits that case of the petitioner is required to be considered afresh. 4. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition vis-a-vis judgments sought to be relied upon by this Court in Mamta Devi and Savita (supra), this Court has no hesitation to conclude that issue with regard to entitlement of a married woman to compassionate appointment already stands adjudicated in afore cases, as a result thereof, impugned order dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-4), whereby claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that petitioner is a married woman, is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside. However, respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh taking note of findings returned in the judgments detailed hereinabove. Since petitioner has been fighting for her rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and 2 trusts that needful shall be done by the respondents expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from today. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. January 02, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3