Married Daughters Must Be Counted in Family Size; Policy‑Induced Delay Not Fatal: HP High Court on Compassionate Appointment

Introduction

This judgment revisits two recurrent controversies in the domain of compassionate appointments under the Himachal Pradesh policy framework: (i) whether married daughters can be treated as eligible and as part of the “family” for assessing indigency; and (ii) whether a claim can be defeated on grounds of delay where the delay is traceable to the State’s own exclusionary understanding of the policy at the relevant time. The petitioner, Savita, sought appointment on compassionate grounds following the in‑harness death of her father, a Junior Basic Trained Teacher, in 2012. Her claim was rejected twice—first on the premise that a married daughter was ineligible and subsequently on the grounds of delay and income threshold. The High Court set aside the rejection, laying down a clear interpretive approach anchored in gender equality and faithful application of the State’s own Office Memorandum dated 07.03.2019 (OM 07.03.2019) that prescribes how indigency is to be calculated.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court quashed the impugned rejections of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.
• It held that:
  • Married daughters are entitled to consideration under the compassionate appointment scheme, consistent with the precedent in Mamta Devi.
  • For determining indigency under OM 07.03.2019, the deceased’s family was to be treated as consisting of four persons (wife and three married daughters), and the income threshold applied accordingly.
  • The Department’s reliance on a notional two‑member family and its consequent income limit was erroneous.
  • The alleged delay was not a valid ground for rejection because the petitioner’s initial inaction and the later application were reasonably explained by the State’s earlier stance that married daughters were ineligible; the cause of action crystallized upon the clarification in Mamta Devi.
• The Court directed the State to reconsider the petitioner’s case afresh within six weeks and to communicate the decision to the petitioner.

Factual Background and Procedural History

• 06.04.2012: Petitioner’s father (a JBT Teacher) died in harness, leaving behind his wife and three married daughters (including the petitioner).
• 2018: Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment; on 12.11.2018, the request was rejected for “no provision for married daughter.”
• 2021–2022: In CWP No. 826 of 2021 (Savita v. State of H.P.), the Court directed the State to reconsider the claim in light of Mamta Devi v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 3100 of 2020, decided on 28.02.2020), which recognized married daughters’ eligibility subject to policy criteria.
• 20.04.2023: On reconsideration, the State again rejected the claim, computing the family income as exceeding the limit for a two‑member family.
• 22.09.2023: After further directions in the present writ, the State reiterated rejection on two grounds: delay (six years after death) and income beyond the prescribed ceiling.
• 05.09.2025: The High Court rejected both grounds and directed a fresh decision in six weeks.

Key Issues

1. Are married daughters liable to be considered as part of the deceased employee’s “family” for the purposes of compassionate appointment and the computation of indigency/income criteria?
2. Can a claim be rejected on the ground of delay when the initial exclusion resulted from the State’s own position that married daughters were ineligible, later corrected by the Court?
3. Which policy and what method of indigency assessment apply—especially the “family of four” presumption in OM 07.03.2019?

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1) Mamta Devi v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 3100 of 2020, decided on 28.02.2020)

This foundational decision affirmed that married daughters are eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment, subject to compliance with the governing policy conditions. In Savita’s earlier writ (CWP No. 826 of 2021), the Court had used Mamta Devi to direct a fresh evaluation of her claim, effectively dismantling the State’s earlier position that a married daughter was per se ineligible. In the present judgment, Mamta Devi functions as the touchstone for eligibility and as the backdrop against which the question of delay is assessed.

2) Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P. (CWPOA No. 6065 of 2019, decided on 02.06.2022)

Rakesh Kumar is central to the income computation question. The Court there held that a married daughter remains a member of her father’s family for the limited purpose of computing family size and annual income thresholds under compassionate appointment policies. Excluding her while including wives of sons would be arbitrary and discriminatory, entrenching gender inequality. The policy had to be “read down” to avoid such discrimination.

Subsequent procedural history underscores the stability of this principle within the State:

• 02.07.2024: A Division Bench dismissed CMP(M) No. 937 of 2023 in the LPA arising from Rakesh Kumar.
• 11.11.2024: The Supreme Court dismissed SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 48949/2024 on the ground of delay, leaving the question of law open. While this is not a pronouncement on merits, it leaves Rakesh Kumar intact as binding within Himachal Pradesh.

In Savita, the Court explicitly followed Rakesh Kumar to correct the State’s computation methodology and to anchor its equality‑based reading of the policy.

Policy Framework: OM dated 07.03.2019

The State’s Office Memorandum dated 07.03.2019 governs the assessment of indigency via income criteria. It provides:

• Maximum ceiling of total family income: Rs. 2,25,000 per annum, presuming a family of four.
• If family members exceed four, still presume family size as four (hence the ceiling remains Rs. 2,25,000).
• If family size is less than four, the income ceiling is Rs. 56,250 multiplied by the number of family members (e.g., three members: Rs. 1,68,750; two members: Rs. 1,12,500).

Two interpretive consequences flow from this:

1. Departments cannot arbitrarily shrink family size to two merely because daughters are married; married daughters remain part of the deceased’s family for this limited assessment, consistent with Rakesh Kumar.
2. Where the correct family size is four or more, the applicable ceiling is Rs. 2,25,000.

Legal Reasoning

A. Married Daughter as Family Member for Income Assessment

The Court reaffirmed that, for the purposes of compassionate appointment, a married daughter does not lose her identity as a member of her father’s family. Excluding married daughters from the family headcount while including daughters‑in‑law (through the sons) would cement an arbitrary, gendered asymmetry. Following Rakesh Kumar, the policy must be read down to avoid such discrimination. In Savita’s case, the deceased left behind his wife and three married daughters—four members. The Department’s approach of treating the family as two members was legally untenable.

B. Correct Application of the 2019 OM and Temporal Application

Although the death occurred in 2012, the claim was being processed and reconsidered after OM 07.03.2019 came into force. The Court applied the OM’s objective formula, which is customary in compassionate appointment cases where the policy in force at the time of consideration governs. Applying the presumption of a four‑member family, the Court held that the income ceiling of Rs. 2,25,000 applied.

On the figures produced, the Court noted:

• Income of the petitioner’s maternal family: Rs. 2,04,480 per annum (Annexure P‑8).
• Income of the petitioner’s own family: Rs. 50,000 per annum (page 40 of the paper‑book).

On the Court’s reading, the petitioner’s claim met the ceiling when the correct family size and the OM’s framework were applied. The Department’s earlier comparison to a two‑member limit (Rs. 1,12,500) was thus incorrect.

C. Delay: When Rights Are Clarified Later, Delay Is Not Fatal

Compassionate appointment is designed to alleviate immediate financial distress; ordinarily, delay can undermine the purpose of the scheme. However, where delay is directly attributable to the State’s own exclusionary interpretation later corrected by judicial pronouncement, it cannot be wielded to defeat the claim. The Court noted:

• At the time of death (2012), the Department did not recognize married daughters as eligible; hence the petitioner did not apply immediately.
• She applied in 2018 but was rejected for being a married daughter.
• Only after Mamta Devi (2020) affirmed eligibility did she press her claim afresh, ultimately leading to judicial directions in 2022 for reconsideration.

In these circumstances, characterizing the claim as “delayed” was unfair and contrary to equity. The delay was policy‑induced and, once the legal position changed (or was clarified), the claim had to be examined on merits.

D. Remedial Approach

Rather than ordering a direct appointment, the Court quashed the rejections and directed a fresh consideration within six weeks in accordance with the law and the correct income methodology under OM 07.03.2019. This calibrated relief respects both the welfare objective of the scheme and the administrative prerogative to match qualifications and availability to suitable posts.

Impact and Significance

• Administrative recalibration: Departments in Himachal Pradesh must:
  • Count married daughters as part of the deceased employee’s family for indigency assessment.
  • Apply OM 07.03.2019 correctly—using the family‑of‑four ceiling where family size is four or more.
  • Avoid rejecting claims as “delayed” when delay is rooted in earlier policy exclusions later corrected by court decisions.
• Equality mainstreamed: The judgment operationalizes gender equality within a welfare scheme by reading down discriminatory applications of policy. It precludes a double bind where a daughter would be excluded both from her natal and marital families for computation.
• Stability of precedent: With the Division Bench declining to unsettle Rakesh Kumar and the Supreme Court leaving the question of law open (SLP dismissed on delay), the High Court’s approach remains authoritative within Himachal Pradesh unless and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise on merits.
• Guidance on temporal policy application: It reinforces the practice of applying the policy in force at the time of consideration/reconsideration, an important procedural point for pending or revived claims.
• Potential ripple effects: Other States with similar exclusionary practices or ambiguous income computation methods may look to this reasoning, though binding effect outside HP will depend on local policy wording and controlling precedents.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Compassionate appointment: A discretionary, welfare‑oriented exception to regular recruitment, intended to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family of a government servant who dies in harness or retires on medical grounds. It is not a vested right but is governed by policy conditions.
• Indigency/income criterion: A quantifiable threshold used to determine whether the family faces financial distress warranting compassionate appointment. Under OM 07.03.2019, the ceiling is Rs. 2,25,000 per annum for a family presumed to be of four members; if fewer than four, the ceiling is pro‑rated at Rs. 56,250 per member.
• Reading down: A judicial technique by which a court interprets a policy or statute narrowly to avoid unconstitutionality or discrimination, thereby preserving its validity while eliminating arbitrary applications—in this context, ensuring married daughters are not excluded from family computations.
• Policy‑induced delay: Delay caused because a claimant was wrongly excluded by the State’s policy interpretation at the relevant time. When later judicial decisions clarify eligibility, such delay is generally excusable.
• “Question of law left open”: When the Supreme Court dismisses an SLP on technical grounds (e.g., delay) without deciding the merits, it does not affirm or overrule the legal principle. High Court law continues to apply within its jurisdiction.

Practice Pointers

• For Departments:
  • Always compute indigency under the correct family size with OM 07.03.2019’s presumptions.
  • Document reasons comprehensively; avoid categorical rejections based on marital status.
  • Where earlier rejections flowed from now‑discredited grounds (e.g., ineligibility of married daughters), reconsideration should be on merits without invoking delay.
• For Applicants:
  • When facing a “delay” objection, demonstrate how the delay ties to prior policy exclusions later clarified by court decisions.
  • Provide clear income evidence for all relevant family units; align submissions with OM 07.03.2019’s computation method.

Conclusion

Savita v. State of H.P. consolidates and operationalizes two key principles in compassionate appointment jurisprudence in Himachal Pradesh: married daughters are part of the deceased employee’s family for the purposes of eligibility and income computation; and delay attributable to earlier exclusionary policy interpretations cannot be used to defeat such claims. By quashing the rejection and directing a fresh decision under OM 07.03.2019, the Court vindicates a constitutionally consonant, gender‑sensitive, and policy‑faithful approach to a vital welfare measure. The decision will influence administrative practice across the State, ensure uniform application of income criteria, and provide a roadmap for handling legacy cases where claimants were earlier turned away due to marital status. While the Supreme Court has left the larger question open in a different matter, within Himachal Pradesh the present ruling—anchored in Mamta Devi and Rakesh Kumar—sets a clear and equitable standard for future cases.

Key Takeaways

• Married daughters are eligible for compassionate appointment and must be counted in family size for income assessment.
• Under OM 07.03.2019, a family of four (or more) attracts a ceiling of Rs. 2,25,000 per annum.
• Policy‑induced delay is not a valid ground to reject compassionate appointment claims.
• Rejections must be revisited where earlier decisions rested on gender‑based exclusions or misapplication of the policy.