Married Daughter Can't Be Excluded From Family For Purpose Of Compassionate Appointment: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate appointment, and family income has to be calculated including them as well.Quoting Rakesh Kumar V/s State of H.P., 2022, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Noted that: “Simply because the daughter is married, this does not means that she loses...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate appointment, and family income has to be calculated including them as well.
Quoting Rakesh Kumar V/s State of H.P., 2022, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Noted that: “Simply because the daughter is married, this does not means that she loses her identity as member of the family of her father… 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…”
Petitioner's father worked as Junior Basic Trained teacher and he died in 2012 during service. After his death, apart from his wife, his three married daughters applied for compassionate appointment in 2018.
However, the petitioner's appointment was rejected on the grounds that there was no provision for employment on compassionate grounds for a married daughter.
Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the rejection by relying on the case of Mamta Devi v. State of H.P. (2020), where the Court had held that married daughters are also entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. Thus, the Court directed the state to reconsider her claim.
However, when the case was reconsidered, it was again rejected on the ground that the family income was above the prescribed limit. The authorities only considered the family to be of two members instead of four, and did not include married daughters.
The Court concluded that the family of the petitioner has to be considered as consisting of four persons, including the married daughters and according to the 2019 policy, the income does not exceed the limit prescribed under the policy.
Case Name: Savita v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Case No.: CWP No. 3070 of 2023
Date of Decision: 05.09.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr. Anshul Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N.Sharma and Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocates General