An unmarried daughter's eligibility for compassionate appointment is determined based on her marital status as of the date of application; subsequent marriage in the interregnum does not disqualify her.

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.

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 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.

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 pe