Exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of 'dependent family member' in the compassionate appointment scheme was discriminatory and violative of constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT

Augustine George Masih, J. - Petitioner is daughter of late Head Constable Kashmir Singh, who died in harness on 02.10.2008 leaving behind Jasbir Kaur widow and Amarjit Kaur-petitioner as his legal heirs. Petitioner was married in April 2004 with one Gursewak Singh, who started residing with Head Constable Kashmir Singh at Village Baghel Singh Wala. The family had no source of income except that of the salary of Head Constable Kashmir Singh. In these circumstances, mother of the petitioner namely Jasbir Kaur submitted a representation, which was duly accompanied with educational qualifications of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in place of her husband late Head Constable Kashmir Singh as per Policy/Instructions dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-12). Affidavit of the mother of the petitioner was sought for by the respondent-department, which was duly submitted on 25.10.2014 (Annexure P-13).

2. The claim of the petitioner for appointment as a Clerk/Computer Operator on compassionate grounds being dependent of late Head Constable Kashmir Singh was declined on 15.04.2015 (Annexure P-14) by the Director General of Police, Punjab-respondent No.2. The reason assigned for not accepting the claim of the petitioner was that she being the married daughter of a deceased employee was not eligible for consideration for appointment as per para 3 Note I of the Instructions dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-12).

3. This order dated 15.04.2015 (Annexure P-14) rejecting the claim of the petitioner stands challenged by the petitioner by way of the present writ petition primarily on the plea that denial of appointment to the petitioner on the basis of she being a married daughter of a deceased Government employee, who otherwise fulfills the criteria for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy instructions dated 21.11.2002, is unsustainable being hit by Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has also been asserted that the petitioner has been discriminated against merely on the ground of her marital status despite an inquiry having been held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Tarn Taran, who in his report dated 12.06.2009 (Annexure R-2), which related to the verification of property/income sources of the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner, had stated in his findings that she was the only daughter of her late father Head Constable Kashmir Singh, who along with her husband and children were residing with her mother Jasbir Kaur in her maternal house. Late Head Constable Kashmir Singh owned one acre of land and except for the pensionary benefits received by Jasbir Kaur, there is no other source of income besides this. It was further stated therein that the family is sustaining itself with great difficulty. Therefore, it is asserted that the impugned order cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.

4. The facts as narrated by the petitioner have not been disputed by the respondents. It has been admitted that late Head Constable Kashmir Singh, father of the petitioner, was serving in police department and expired on 02.10.2008 due to heart attack while on duty leaving behind his widow Jasbir Kaur and a married daughter i.e. the petitioner. Application submitted by Jasbir Kaur, mother of the petitioner, was forwarded to the higher authorities for appointment of the petitioner as Clerk/Computer Operator on compassionate grounds. Her claim was rejected on the ground that she was not entitled to be considered for appointment being a married daughter of the deceased Government employee and, thus, not dependent upon her father. It has been asserted that Amarjit Kaur was married in April 2004 while her father was alive and being a married daughter, she was dependent upon her husband and thus, cannot be termed to be a dependent family member. It has been stated that as per the Punjab Government Instructions dated 21.11.2002, petitioner would not be included in the definition of "depen