IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25147-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.08.2025 Harjot Rani ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P-14) passed by respondent No.4, vide which the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the father of the petitioner, who was working as Lineman with the respondent/Corporation had died in harness on 06.02.2010 as discernible from his Death Certificate (Annexure P-1). The petitioner, at the time of the death of her father, was unmarried and totally dependent upon her father. She applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 20.01.2011 through application No.622 dated 20.01.2011, supported by her affidavit and all other requisite documents (Annexures P-2 to P-4). Initially her request was declined, however, she was granted a solatium instead.

3. Subsequently, pursuant to the new Policy issued vide Notification dated 27.10.2022 (Annexure P-5), which allowed compassionate appointment to dependents of deceased employees who had passed away prior to 16.04.2010, the petitioner submitted a fresh application. Her case was found fully covered under the new Policy and she was held eligible, as is evident from communication dated 14.12.2022 (Annexure P-7). However, her claim was again rejected by the Corporation vide order dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure P-9), solely on the ground that she is a "married daughter" and thus not covered under the definition of "family" as per the earlier Policy.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP No.2218 of 2017 titled as Amarjit Kaur vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 17.01.2020. He further argues that dependency is to be assessed at the time of application, and the petitioner cannot be expected to remain unmarried indefinitely, awaiting the decision of the respondent/Corporation. Once the respondent/Corporation has formulated a Policy, the petitioner could not be lawfully denied the benefit, as done in the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P-14).

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of the respondent – State while Ms. Raina Sabharwal Thakur, Advocate, has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 and submits that the term “married daughter” was not covered under the definition of family as a dependent in the old Policy and the term “married daughter” was included as dependent only in the subsequent Policy issued on 29.01.2024 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent/Corporation.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

6. The issue with regard to compassionate appointment of a “married daughter” is no longer res integra. The present case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Amarjit Kaur’s case (supra), wherein after taking a holistic view of the object of the policy, declared Clause (c) of Note-I as ultravires of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and struck it off, which was upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No.462 of 2021, vide judgment dated 25.01.2023, which has attained finality upto Hon’ble the Supreme Court, wherein the SLP No.9356 of 2023, challenging the same was dismissed on 18.10.2023. The ratio of law as