Compassionate appointment is a welfare measure designed to provide immediate relief to the families of government employees who die in harness, ensuring that financial hardship does not cripple the household. Traditionally, however, the benefits of such schemes have been unevenly distributed due to restrictive definitions of “family” in service rules. One recurring point of contention has been the eligibility of married daughters. While sons and even daughters-in-law are routinely recognised as dependents, married daughters have often been excluded on the assumption that their financial responsibility shifts after marriage.
This presumption has increasingly been challenged before constitutional courts, as it directly collides with the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India—Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in Savita v. State of H.P. & Ors. (2025) is the latest in this line of progressive rulings. The Court categorically held that married daughters cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment merely on account of their marital status, and that such exclusions are arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.
Background of the Case
- Deceased Employee: Sh. Shyam Prakash, a Junior Basic Trained Teacher in the Education Department, died in harness on 06.04.2012.
- Surviving Family: His wife and three married daughters, including the petitioner Savita.
- Initial Application: In 2018, Savita applied for a compassionate appointment, but her claim was rejected on 12.11.2018 solely because there was no provision for married daughters under the prevailing policy
Subsequently, she relied on the ruling in Mamta Devi v. State of H.P. (2020), which recognised married daughters’ eligibility, and approached the High Court. The Court had earlier directed reconsideration, but her claim was again rejected on grounds of delay and income threshold. Aggrieved, she filed the present writ petition.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether a married daughter could be excluded from the definition of “family” under the compassionate appointment policy.
- Whether the petitioner’s application suffered from delay, as it was filed six years after the death of her father.
- Whether the computation of family income by excluding married daughters was valid.
Court’s Analysis
1. Delay in Applying
The State argued that the application was belated since it was filed in 2018, six years after the father’s death. The Court rejected this reasoning. It noted that until the judgment in Mamta Devi (2020), the petitioner had no legal avenue, as married daughters were categorically excluded. The delay was therefore justified, and her claim could not be rejected on this basis.
2. Income Criteria and Family Size
The authorities treated the petitioner’s family as consisting of only two members and applied a reduced income ceiling of ₹1,25,000. However, the Court observed that the deceased was survived by four members—his wife and three married daughters.
Relying on Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P. (2022), the Court emphasised that married daughters remain part of their father’s family for compassionate appointment. Excluding them from the computation was arbitrary and discriminatory. It noted that if the policy counted daughters-in-law (through sons’ marriages), excluding married daughters was an act of gender inequality.
The Court applied the State’s 2019 policy memorandum, which fixed a maximum ceiling of ₹2,25,000 for a family of four. Since the petitioner’s maternal family income was ₹2,04,480 and her own income was ₹50,000, the total did not exceed the threshold.
3. Discrimination and Gender Equality
The Court strongly criticised the practice of denying married daughters recognition as part of the family. It held that such exclusion amounted to gender discrimination, violating principles of equality. A daughter does not lose her identity in her natal family upon marriage for the purposes of compassionate appointment.
The Court stressed that approving such a policy would make the judiciary complicit in perpetuating gender inequality.
Decision
The High Court:
- Quashed the rejection orders of 2018, 2023, and 2023 (second reconsideration).
- Directed the State to reconsider Savita’s case for compassionate appointment afresh within six weeks.
- Clarified that income must be computed considering the family strength as four, including the married daughters.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua stated:
In the instant case, at the time of death, deceased was survived by his wife and three married daughters i.e. total four members in all. Taking into consideration the assessment formula devised by the respondents, the family of petitioner has to be considered as consisting of four persons. Income of the petitioner’s maternal family i.e. Rs.2,04,480/- per annum (Annexure P-8) and income of petitioner’s own family i.e. Rs.50,000/- per annum (page 40 of the paper-book) does not exceed the limit prescribed under the policy.
In view of above, impugned orders rejecting the case of petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds afresh.
Precedents Considered
- Mamta Devi v. State of H.P. (2020) – Held that married daughters are entitled to compassionate appointment subject to eligibility.
- Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P. (2022) – Affirmed that married daughters form part of the family for income assessment. This judgment was later upheld by a Division Bench, and SLP against it was dismissed by the Supreme Court (2024).
Broader Implications
- For Married Daughters: This judgment solidifies their right to be considered without discrimination. It dismantles the presumption that marriage severs a daughter’s connection to her parental family.
- For Service Jurisprudence: The case highlights the importance of interpreting compassionate appointment schemes in line with constitutional values of equality (Article 14) and non-discrimination (Article 15). Policies excluding married daughters are vulnerable to being struck down as arbitrary.
- For Government Policies: Departments must revisit their compassionate appointment rules to ensure gender neutrality. Fixed income ceilings should be applied fairly by counting all natural heirs, irrespective of marital status.
Conclusion
Himachal Pradesh High Court in Savita v. State of H.P. has reaffirmed that married daughters cannot be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment. The ruling carries strong constitutional undertones, emphasising gender equality, fairness in policy implementation, and the humanitarian spirit of compassionate appointments.
By recognising married daughters as rightful claimants, the Court has contributed to dismantling gender biases entrenched in service rules. The decision sets an important precedent for other states and institutions to align their policies with constitutional mandates.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams