Rejection of Compassionate Appointment to Married Daughter Unsustainable After Deletion of ‘Unmarried’ from Punjab Policy: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Kiran Desawar v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 25 May 2026
Citation: CWP-15212 of 2026
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a married daughter cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment solely on the ground of her marital status, particularly after the expression “unmarried daughter” in the Punjab Compassionate Appointment Policy stood struck down by the Court and the State subsequently amended the policy by substituting the expression with “daughter.” An order rejecting a married daughter’s claim solely on the basis of the pre-amended policy is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Summary: The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death in harness of her mother, who was serving as a Safai Sewika with the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. Her application was rejected solely on the ground that she was a married daughter and therefore did not fall within the definition of “dependent” under the Punjab Government’s Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 21.11.2002.
The petitioner contended that the rejection ignored the settled legal position. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier struck down the word “unmarried” appearing before “daughter” in the policy, holding that discrimination between married and unmarried daughters for compassionate appointment violates constitutional guarantees. The said judgment had subsequently been affirmed by the Division Bench, following which the State Government itself amended the policy on 29.01.2024, replacing the expression “unmarried daughter” with “daughter.”
The respondents fairly conceded that, in view of the Division Bench judgment and the subsequent amendment of the policy, a married daughter is now equally entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.
Accepting the said position, the High Court held that the petitioner’s claim could not have been rejected solely because she was married. The impugned rejection order, founded entirely on a policy provision that no longer survives in law, was therefore unsustainable.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The High Court set aside the rejection order dated 18.06.2025 and directed the competent authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in the light of the Division Bench judgment in Amarjit Kaur and the subsequent amendment to the Punjab Compassionate Appointment Policy.