IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 22.04.2026 BANDNA DEVI … PETITIONER VERSUS BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND ORS.

…..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sachin Mittal, Mr. Arnav Mittal and Mr. Akshat Mittal, Advocates for the respondents ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of letter dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure P-2) whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected only on the ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased employee. The petitioner has further sought a direction to the respondents to consider her claim for compassionate appointment in terms of the law laid down by this Court in CWP No.2218 of 2017 titled as “Amarjit Kaur versus State of Punjab and another”.

Brief facts

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner namely late Sh. Jagat Ram was working as a Baildar with respondent-BBMB and died in harness on 01.12.2015. After the death of the sole bread earner of the family, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment being dependent upon the deceased employee. The respondents, however, rejected her claim vide impugned order dated 20.09.2019 solely on the ground that the petitioner is a married daughter and, therefore, not entitled for appointment under the policy.

Contentions On behalf of the petitioner

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim merely on account of her marital status is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by the judgment of this Court in Amarjit Kaur’s case (supra), wherein exclusion of married daughters from consideration for compassionate appointment was held to be unconstitutional.

On behalf of respondents

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that as per the BBMB policy dated 24.02.2015, only an unmarried daughter or legally divorced daughter falls within the definition of “dependent family member” and since the petitioner is admittedly married, her case was rightly rejected in accordance with the policy.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

Analysis

6. The short question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether a married daughter can be denied consideration for compassionate appointment merely on the basis of her marital status.

7. The issue is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Amarjit Kaur’s case (Supra), wherein it was held that denial of compassionate appointment to a married daughter amounts to gender discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. This Court observed that a daughter does not cease to be part of her parental family after marriage and if a married son can be considered dependent upon the deceased employee, there is no rationale to deny similar consideration to a married daughter.

8. The relevant observations made in Amarjit Kaur’s case reads as under:-

“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, wha