2026:HHC:12268 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 12726 of 2025 Decided on : 20.04.2026 Shyama Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : M/s Ranjana Thakur and Shine Sehgal, Advocates, vice Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Bhagmal Sharma, Clerk, HPPWD, Chopal, present in person. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That the writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued and the Impugned rejection letter dated 19.09.2022 Ann.-P-3) of the case of the Petitioner for appointment compassionate basis may kindly be quashed and set aside. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:12268 ii) That the writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued and the order dated 09.04.2022 (Ann. P-7) and O.M. dated 18.05.2022 referred in order dated 09.04.2022 (Ann. P-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside in view the judgment passed in CWP No. 3743/2024 dated 10.04.2025. iii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be 2008 issued, directing the Respondents to grant employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds from the date of her joining with consequential benefits and seniority.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the father of the petitioner, who was serving as a Peon on regular basis with the Public Works Department, died in harness on 14.07.2020. He left behind his widow, one son and two daughters. The petitioner is one of the daughters of the deceased. After the death of her father, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate basis, in the month of June, 2021. At the time when she applied for appointment on compassionate basis, she was unmarried. 3. The petitioner was offered appointment vide office order dated 31.08.2022. In this appointment letter, there was a condition that the women candidate shall produce her marital status at the time of joining to the Controlling Officer and the 3 2026:HHC:12268 Controlling Officer shall ensure that if the applicant is married, joining may not be accepted and the matter be brought to the notice of the office concerned. 4. To cut the controversy short, after the petitioner applied for the post in the month of June, 2021, she solemnized marriage on 25.07.2021. After the appointment was offered to her, she submitted her joining on 06.09.2022 against the post of Peon on daily wage basis and thereafter, intimated the Authority that as she had undergone surgery at the time of the delivery of her first child, she be granted maternity leave. 5. After this fact came to the notice of the Authority, her joining was rejected by the Authority on 19.09.2022. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3390 of 2023, titled Shyama Kumari Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., which was decided by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench on 01.05.2024, inter alia, by issuing a direction to the Authority to decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3100 of 2020, titled Mamta Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 28.10.2020. 4 2026:HHC:12268 7. Thereafter, the Authority passed office order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-7) and rejected the representation of the petitioner by assigning the following reasons:- “The judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court and the OM dated 18.05.2022 are specifically for the petitioners/families where only female members remained available after the death of the Govt. employee i.e. bread earner of the family, whereas, in the instant matter the family has a male member (son of the deceased), who is also elder to the petitioner and adult enough to earn his livelihood and look after the family. Moreover, wife of the deceased Govt. Servant is also getting family pension and drawing family pension @ Rs. 19783/- P/M as such family does not seem in penury and financial destitution. The case of petitioner is not similarly situated to Mamta Devi case & the parity of such case can not be given to the petitioner as the facts & circumstances in both the cases are different. As the conditions for appointment as compassionate ground relating to marital status at the time of joining was not met in the case of petitioner & her case not being similar to the case of Mamta Devi's case, therefore the prayer of the petitioner can not be accepted. In view of above facts & circumstances, the instant 5 2026:HHC:12268 matter having not found similar situated to the relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court and not covered under the Finance Department's OM Dated 18.05.2022 is accordingly considered and rejected.” Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection of the case of the petitioner on the reasoning assigned in the impugned order, is not sustainable in eyes of law. She submitted that the Authority erred in not appreciating that even if the case of the petitioner was not akin to that of Mamta Devi’s case (supra) on facts, the moot issue was whether an unmarried daughter was rendered ineligible for appointment on compassionate basis if she solemnized marriage after she applied for the post on compassionate basis. 9. Learned counsel submitted that it was the marital status of the petitioner as on the date when she applied for the post which was material in this case and as it was a matter of record that she was unmarried in the month of June, 2021, when she applied for the post, the rejection of the case of the petitioner by the Authority without any due application of mind, 6 2026:HHC:12268 is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. 10. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General argued that in the present case, though the petitioner at the time when she applied for the post, was unmarried, however, a month thereafter, she solemnized marriage. He further submitted that in terms of the appointment letter, which was issued to the petitioner, there was a condition mentioned therein that the petitioner at the time of joining had to furnish a certificate to the effect that she was unmarried and in the present case, a false certificate was submitted by the petitioner that she was unmarried, whereas, fact of the matter was that she was married when appointment was offered to her. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that as far as Mamta Devi’s case (supra) is concerned, as on facts, the case of the petitioner was not akin to the same, as is evident from the order passed by the Authority dated 09.04.2025, the Authority rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner in light of the judgment as also O.M dated 18.05.2022, which stands referred to in the order under challenge. Learned Deputy Advocate General thus submitted that as the petitioner 7 2026:HHC:12268 was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria to be offered appointment on compassionate basis, rejection of her case by the Authority, cannot be faulted with. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the record as well as documents appended therewith. 12. On the last date of hearing, the State was directed to produce the original record of the case. Today, original record relating to the case, stands produced for the perusal of the Court. 13. A perusal of the original record demonstrates that after the death of her father on 14.07.2020, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate basis, vide a letter in vernacular, which in original is on record but is undated. Record further demonstrates that Executive Engineer, Chopal Division, HPPWD Chopal, vide letter dated 25.06.2021 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, 4th Circle HPPWD, Shimla-III, on the subject “Employment Assistance Case on compassionate ground of Ms. Shyama Kumari daughter of Late 8 2026:HHC:12268 Shri Mohi Ram (Beldar) to the post of Clerk” forwarded the case of the petitioner for necessary action. As this forwarding letter is dated 25.06.2021, obviously, the request of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment must have preceded this and the same thus demonstrates that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the month of June, 2021. 14. Now, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was unmarried when she applied for the post in issue and she, thereafter, solemnized marriage on 25.07.2001. The petitioner was offered appointment on compassionate basis in terms of office order dated 31.08.2022. A condition was mentioned in this appointment letter, as stands mentioned hereinabove also, that a lady candidate was to produce her marital status at the time of joining to the Controlling Officer and Controlling Officer was to ensure that if the applicant was married, the joining was not to be accepted and matter was to be brought to the notice of the Engineer in Chief concerned. 15. On record, there is a certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by Gram Panchayat Manjhauli, which is dated 9 2026:HHC:12268 08.02.2021 to the effect that the petitioner was unmarried. There is also on record a communication dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure P-4), addressed to the petitioner by Executive Engineer, Chopal Division, to the effect that in terms of the appointment letter, the petitioner was asked to produce her marital status certificate and a “fake certificate” was submitted by her at the time of “submission of case for employment on Compassionate ground” and on this count, her joining was being rejected as she was not fulfilling condition No.15 of the appointment letter. There is also a note in this letter to the effect that Smt. Shyama Kumari did not produce the marital certificate which was sought from her and submitted an application for maternity leave instead of production of the unmarried certificate. 16. This communication is being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department NO: PW-CHD-EA-1 Comp./2022 8490-91 Dated:- 19/9/22 To Smt. Shayama Kumari D/O Late Shri Mohi Ram Village Harnah Mnjholi Tehsil Kupvi. 10 2026:HHC:12268 Subject:- Regarding appointment as Peon on compassionate. With reference to the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD Shimla office order No. 8126-8175 dated 31.08.2022, you were asked to produce unmarried certificate, but despite of production of unmarried certificate to this office, you have submitted the maternity leave, you have failed to provide the marital status certificate. On the perusal of maternity leave it seems that you were married before the sanctioning of your case on compassionate ground, which is contrary to the condition of appointment letter of point No.15. As such in view of above your joining could not be considered as you were already married and you have submitted fake certificate at the time of submission of case for employment on compassionate ground, as such your joining is rejected in view of not fulfill the condition No.15 of appointment order.” 17. Before proceeding further, this Court would also like to refer to a communication on record addressed by the petitioner to the Authority, in response to letter dated 19.09.2022, in which she denied that any fake certificate etc. was submitted by her qua her marital when she went to give 11 2026:HHC:12268 her joining as no certificate was sought to be produced regarding her marital status. 18. Herein, is a case where an unmarried daughter applied for appointment after the death of her father and before the Authority could process her case and offer her appointment, she solemnized marriage in between. On this count she is being denied appointment. 19. The moot issue which this Court has to decide is whether an unmarried daughter who applies for compassionate appointment is rendered ineligible if she solemnizes marriage after applying for the post and before the appointment is offered to her. 20. Only three categories of persons can apply for compassionate appointment, on demise of a married employee i.e. spouse, a daughter or a son. 21. At the time when the father of the petitioner died, the Policy in vogue qua the compassionate appointment was the one issued vide Office Memorandum dated 07.03.2019. The relevant clause of the Policy under Heading-2, to whom the Policy was applicable, inter alia, provided as under:- 12 2026:HHC:12268 “2) TO WHOM THE POLICY IS APPLICABLE: The employment assistance on compassionate grounds will be allowed in order of priority only to widow or a son or an unmarried daughter (in case of unmarried Govt. Servant, to father, mother, brother and unmarried sister) of :- a) A regular Government employee/Contractual employee, who dies while in services (including suicide), leaving his family indigent & in immediate need of assistance. b) A Daily Waged worker, who dies while in service, leaving his/her family indigent & in immediate need of assistance.: c) A Government servant, who has been missing for more than two years, and the family is indigent & needs immediate assistance (an FIR to this effect must be lodged with the Police, the missing person should be declared not traceable by the Court and the competent authority must satisfy itself that the case is genuine]. The cases of those missing Government servants are not to be considered who had less than two years to retire on the date from which they have gone missing or who are suspected to have committed fraud, or are suspected to 13 2026:HHC:12268 have joined any terrorist organization or are suspected to have gone abroad: d) A Government servant (Class-III and IV only), who retires on medical grounds under Rule-38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, provided the employee so retiring has not crossed the age of 45 years.” The petitioner being eligible as per this Clause applied for appointment on compassionate basis. 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 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 14 2026:HHC:12268 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 15 2026:HHC:12268 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 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 16 2026:HHC:12268 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 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 17 2026:HHC:12268 accordingly quashed and set aside. 29. In light of the discussion held hereinabove, this Court also sets aside order dated 19.09.2022, in terms whereof, the joining of the petitioner was rejected. 30. This Court thus allows the petition and directs that the petitioner shall be construed to have been appointed as a daily wage Peon as from the date when she joined her service on the strength of the appointment letter dated 31.08.2022, with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits and seniority, because in the present case, the petitioner has been made a victim of circumstances by the Department concerned. 31. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Though this Court was inclined to impose cost on the State, but on the insistence of the learned Deputy Advocate General, it refrains from imposing cost. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 20, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)