Daughter fights & wins compassionate employment case

On April 6, 2012, her father who was a teacher in the Himachal Pradesh government’s education department, died in harness. He left behind his wife and three married daughters. In 2018, the eldest daughter sought a job on compassionate grounds. However, the Himachal Pradesh government rejected her claim on November 12, 2018, stating that there was no provision for married daughters to receive employment on compassionate grounds.

In 2022, she filed a case before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which instructed the state government to decide her case based on the 2020 Mamta Devi case (CWP No.3100 of 2020). The ruling in the Mamta Devi case established that married daughters were entitled to employment on compassionate grounds, provided they met the necessary criteria outlined in the compassionate appointment policy.

After re-assessing her case in light of the Mamta Devi ruling, the Himachal Pradesh government once again rejected her application, this time citing that the family’s total income from all sources was Rs 2,20,000 per annum, while the income criteria prescribed for a family of two was set at Rs 1,25,000 according to the policy. Following the second denial, the elder daughter again approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the second rejection order of the Himachal Pradesh government and directed them to consider the elder daughter’s case for employment on compassionate grounds afresh.

This is a reportable judgement (CWP No.3070 of 2023 ) and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua of Himachal Pradesh High Court answered the question “whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes, they said.”

Also read: 53% interest to be paid by Income Tax dept to an individual’s tax refund of Rs 6.42 lakh; Delhi High Court order

Himachal Pradesh High Court said this about compassionate employment
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua of Himachal Pradesh High Court said in this judgement dated September 5, 2025:

• Pursuant to an order passed in this writ petition on August 21, 2023, respondents (Himachal Pradesh Government) re-considered the case of the petitioner (daughter) for employment on compassionate grounds and once again rejected it on 22.09.2023 on the grounds that:-
• (i) petitioner’s claim suffered from delay, having been preferred six years after the death of her father; and
• (ii) her family income being more than the upper prescribed limit under the policy.

Himachal Pradesh High Court said that in their considered view, the reasons assigned by the respondents (Himachal Pradesh government) for rejecting the case of the petitioner (daughter) are not tenable.

Also read: Wife files case 24 years after husband's death in govt job; Rajasthan High Court orders pension, gratuity payout with interest

It is the pleaded case of the respondents (Himachal Pradesh Government) that according to them, married daughters were not eligible for employment on compassionate grounds under the relevant policy.

Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “Perhaps for such a reason, the petitioner (daughter) had not applied for employment on compassionate grounds immediately after the death of her father in the year 2012. She had applied in 2018, but the respondents rejected it on 12.11.2018 for want of provision for employment on compassionate grounds for married daughters.”

Also read: Denial of marital intimacy and alienating child amounts to mental cruelty, says Delhi High Court and grants divorce to husband

The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that it was only after the decision in the Mamta Devi (CWP No.3100 of 2020) case, which affirmed married daughters’ claim to employment on compassionate grounds subject to their satisfying eligibility criteria, that the petitioner applied afresh and on not getting response thereto from the respondents, she asked to be given relief as per the case of Savita vs the State of H.P. & Ors.

Also read: Higher EPS pension can’t be denied to members retiring after September 1, 2014, once EPFO accepts higher wage contributions, Kerala High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “It is pursuant to the directions issued in the said writ petition, the respondents examined the case of the petitioner on merit. In the given facts, petitioner’s claim cannot be said to suffering from delay.”

Also read: Government deducted gratuity and pension of a retired engineer for not vacating govt residence on time, he fights back and wins case in Supreme Court

What Himachal Pradesh High Court said about the family’s income
The second reason assigned by the respondents (Himachal Pradesh Government) about petitioner’s (daughter) family income being more than the limit prescribed in the policy is also fallacious.

The High Court said that the government has counted the income of her family by considering it to be a family consisting of two members, whereas it is an admitted position that the deceased's family consisted of four members i.e. his wife and three married daughters.

Also read: Employee with ‘Highly Valued’ rating in appraisal got termination letter with words ‘malicious conduct’, he fights back and wins case in Delhi High Court

In Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors ( CWPOA No. 6065 of 2019 decided on June 2, 2022) it was held that married daughters are liable to be considered as part of the family of the deceased and income of the family is to be computed accordingly.

Himachal Pradesh High Court says this: “It is also an admitted position that Hon’ble Apex Court on 11.11.2024, has dismissed SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).48949/2024, arising out of aforesaid decision, on the ground of delay, leaving the question of law open for being considered in an appropriate case.”

Also read: Teacher got Rs 3.5 lakh cash gift from daughter; Tax dept sent notice, she fought back and won case in ITAT Delhi

Income assessment formula devised by the Himachal Pradesh Government
As per the policy issued vide office memorandum dated March 7, 2019, indigency is to be assessed as under:

• “Income Criteria will be an important criteria to determine indigency. The maximum ceiling of total family income to assess indigency is fixed as Rs.2,25,000/-, presuming a family of 4 persons.
• Even if the number of family persons exceeds 4, the family size will still be presumed to be 4.
• If the family members are less than 4, then the income of the family would be calculated by multiplying Rs 56,250 by the number of family members.
• Thus, if the family size is 3, the maximum income limit would be Rs 1,68,750 per annum to determine indigency.
• If family size is 2, the income limit would be Rs 1,12,500 per annum to determine indigency. The above income criteria has been mentioned to bring objectivity in the determination of indigency of a family/applicant.

Also read: Income Tax dept loses seized jewellery worth over Rs 90 lakh kept in bank custody: Allahabad High Court orders dept to compensate the taxpayer

The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that in the instant case, at the time of death, the deceased (father) 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 (Himachal Pradesh Government), the family of petitioner (daughter) has to be considered as consisting of four persons.

Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “Income of the petitioner’s maternal family i.e. Rs.2,04,480 per annum and income of petitioner’s own family i.e. Rs 50,000 per annum does not exceed the limit prescribed under the policy.”

Also read: Mental cruelty: Wife pressured husband to abandon mother, sister; Delhi High Court grants divorce to husband on this ground

Himachal Pradesh High Court final judgement
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that in view of above discussions, impugned orders rejecting the case of petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds are quashed and set aside.

Judgement: Respondents (Himachal Pradesh Government) are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds afresh. This exercise will now be carried out within six weeks and appropriate order be passed accordingly, in accordance with law. The order so passed, be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition to stand disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.”