Married daughters must be included in family income assessments for compassionate employment, as excluding them is arbitrary and discriminatory.

JUDGMENT :

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.)

Petitioner’s case for employment on compassionate ground has been turned down by the respondents-Education Department on 24.08.2023 (Annexure P-9) on the ground that his income exceeds the ceiling limit fixed under the applicable policy, hence, the writ petition.

2. Facts.

2(i). Petitioner’s father-Sh. Sarjeevan Kumar was serving as regular Lab Attendant in the respondent- Education Department. He died on 24.12.2021 while in service.

2(ii). Petitioner applied for employment on compassionate ground. The respondents considered the case of the petitioner under the applicable policy/instructions and rejected it on 24.08.2023. The rejection was on the ground that there were four legal heirs of the deceased-employee, two of them were married daughters; As per income certificate furnished by the petitioner, his family income was Rs.2,00,000/- per annum whereas as per office memorandum dated 07.03.2019 (2019 Compassionate Employment Policy), for a family consisting of two members, the family income should not exceed Rs.1,25,000/- to fall within the purview of the policy. Petitioner’s family income being beyond the prescribed limit, his case was accordingly rejected the Department Committee on 05.08.2023/24.08.2023.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

4. As per 2019 Policy for employment on compassionate ground, annual income limit for a family consisting of four or more members has been fixed at Rs.2,50,000/- per annum. As per the said policy, in case the family members are less than four then the annual income limit per member has been fixed at Rs.62,500/- per member. The respondents have excluded married daughters from the definition of word ‘family’ for computing family income.

In Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWPOA No.6065 of 2019 decided on 02.06.2022, it was held that there was no rationale for not counting the married daughters as members of the family for the purpose of assessing annual family income for compassionate appointment. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

“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 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,