IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

221 CWP-10420-2021 (O & M)

Date of decision: 24.01.2025 Balbir Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Angel Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Satnam Preet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the order/letter dated 05.05.2021, Annexure P-9, whereby claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected, based on the fact that she is a married daughter, which issue stands decided by this Court in CWP-2218-2017, Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab, decided on 17.01.2020, after taking a holistic view of the object of the policy, declared Clause (c) of Note-I of Scheme for compassionate appointments- 2002 as ultra vires of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India and struck it off, which was upheld by the Division Bench in LPA-462-2021, vide judgment dated 25.01.2023 and has attained finality up to Hon’ble the Supreme Court wherein SLP No. 9356-2023, challenging the same was dismissed on 18.10.2023, relevant paras whereof read thus:

“9. A perusal of the above para 3 (2) would show that the category of persons, who would be eligible for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds includes a dependent member of the family of the deceased Government employee, who dies in harness. Note I deals with the dependent family member, which includes son, as also the adopted son and unmarried daughter including an adopted daughter but not a married daughter. This is apparent from the language used in the scheme as the word 'daughter' has been qualified by 'unmarried'. It may be added here that as far as the son is concerned, there is no qualification with regard to his marital status. He could be unmarried or even married but as far as a daughter is concerned, it is restricted to unmarried daughter only.

10. The intent and purpose of the scheme, which is the subject matter of the present petition, is for providing a helping hand to the family, who has all of a sudden, lost the sole breadwinner. The aim, therefore, is to save such a family from starvation so that they can tide over the extreme situation, which they are facing because of the death of the person, who provided them the food and the minimum basic amenities for their survival. Thus, the determinative factor with regard to a person being eligible for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds, is the financial status of the family. This is so, as a benefit is being provided to a family out of the way. Only deserving cases should be provided such benefits, more so when, a person, merely because of his/her eligibility, entitles the said person for appointment as a special case. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal’s case (supra) had observed that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment nor it should be so done merely because of death of an employee in harness.

11. Article 14 of the Constitution of India gives right of equal treatment in similar circumstances both in privileges conferred as also the liability imposed. That does not mean that the State does not have the power of classifying persons/categories for legitimate purposes. However, there cannot ever be discrimination and that too against a woman merely on the basis of her sex, which would include the marital status. The only reason why the petitioner has been deprived appointment under the scheme is that she is a married daughter of a deceased government servant, whereas had she been unmarried or had it been the son, despite the marital status, the claim would have been considered. If this is not discrimination, what else can it be termed?

12. Classification, if any, has to be based upon reasonableness, which is justifiable on the anvil and touchstone furt