The main legal point established in the judgment is the discriminatory nature of excluding married daughters from consideration for compassionate appointment, violating Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India and emphasizing the need for gender equality in such policies.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - The present judgment shall dispose of 6 cases bearing LPA-462-2021, CWP-13941 & 22915-2016 CWP-4251 & 10146-2021 & CWP-17958-2022.

2. Consideration in the present set of cases is as to whether the State is justified in excluding consideration of a married daughter for appointment on compassionate grounds, as per instructions dated 21.11.2002.

3. In LPA-462-2021, the learned Single Judge has allowed CWP-2218-2017 titled Amarjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & another on 17.01.2020 and declared Clause (c) of Note-I of the policy/instructions dated 21.11.2002 as ultra vires of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India and struck off of the said policy and instructions. Directions have been issued that it would read as 'Daughter (including adopted Daughter)' whereas earlier it would read as 'Un-married Daughter (including adopted Daughter)' which was the definition of the dependent family members. Learned Single Judge has further also recorded a finding that the petitioner therein was residing in her mother's house at Village Baghel Singh Wala as per the verification report of the DSP, CID, Tarn Taran who remained dependent upon the pensionary benefits of the deceased husband, Head Constable Kashmir Singh. They had only 1 acre of land and no other source of income and therefore, the financial position of the mother and the petitioner was fulfilling the criteria of being dependent upon the deceased father and therefore, it was directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on consideration of her claim within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of the order, while quashing the order dated 15.04.2015 (Annexure P-14) and holding her eligible for appointment under the 2002 scheme.

4. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge was that while examining the scheme for compassionate appointment under the 2002 scheme that it was a policy which was made by the Government after the judgment of the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & others, 1994 (4) SCC 138 and reconsideration of the earlier instructions issued from time to time. In the list of family members which had been defined in Note-I, the word 'un-married daughter' had been written but not a 'married daughter'. It was noticed that for the son, there was no such qualification with regard to his marital status. Resultantly, keeping in mind the purpose of the scheme and the intent was to provide helping hand to the family who had all of a sudden lost the sole breadwinner and the determinative factor with regard to the eligibility was the financial status of the family. The sole purpose being to tide over the sudden financial crisis, it was held that there can be no discrimination against a woman merely on the basis of sex which would include the marital status and if it had been the case of a son who was married, the claim would have been considered and thus, there was apparent discrimination. Resultantly, by holding that the classification has to be based on reasonableness and there has to be gender equality and a woman could not be deprived at the threshold because of the marital status, it was held that the man was thus being put at a higher pedestal and had preferential right of consideration over a woman because of marital status which could not be permitted as it has the effect of rendering the equal protection of law guaranteed under the Constitution otiose. It was accordingly held that a daughter upon her marriage could not be said to have ceased to be part of the family of her father whereas the son could remain throughout and thus, the married daughter could not be deprived the benefit of equal treatment as she would not lose her old relationship.

5. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jai Narain Jakhar Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2012 (1) RSJ 430 wherein a married daughter of an Exserviceman had been denied her dependency certificate as per the policy of the State