‘Once A Daughter Always A Daughter’: High Court Says Punjab Policy Excluding Married Daughters From Compassionate Appointment Violates Articles 14 & 15

The division bench of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan said:

“We are of the considered opinion that the exclusion at the outset in the case of a married daughter is apparently arbitrary. The rejection at the threshold only on the ground of gender would be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India since in contrast similarly situated sibling like the son who may be married and living separately would come within the zone of consideration since in his case, under Clause (b) of Note-I, it is not that his consideration is excluded being the married son.”

The division bench was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Punjab against decisions in multiple petitions which had challenged the policy as discriminatory.

The impugned clause (c) of Note-I of the policy/instructions dated 21.11.2002 was earlier challenged by the present-respondents stating that the mention of only ‘unmarried daughters’ in clause (c), as beneficiaries of compassionate appointment, as opposed to the usage of the term ‘son’ – which would include both a married as well as an unmarried son, was discriminatory.

The single bench of the High Court in one decision had, however, ordered that the term ‘unmarried daughter’ in clause (c) was to be read as ‘daughter’ with the effect that even married daughters would fall within its scope.

Before the division bench, the petitions were clubbed together on account of the matter of constitutional importance involved.

The State argued that the impugned clause (c) was not discriminatory as it stemmed out of reasonable classification. It was argued that after marriage, the daughter would no longer be dependent upon the family of the deceased and therefore, the policy rightly excluded them from the benefit of compassionate appointment.

The State further argued that it was not for the Courts to enlarge such policies or rules to include married daughters who were excluded in the policy.

Reliance was placed by the State on the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Gurpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others, 2019 (1) SCT 66, the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra and Another v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, 2022 (4) SCT 298 and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Sumer Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2012 (2) SCT 331.

The division bench of the High Court, after perusing the policy, said that the exclusion of married daughters from the benefit of compassionate appointment was discriminatory. The Court said:

“A married daughter is shut out from even applying as she would not come within the zone of consideration whether she is dependent or not but exclusion is only on account of gender and it would be patently discriminatory. The deceased Government employee might have only been blessed with daughters and a widow who is not in a position to take up employment. Merely because the daughters are married would not exclude them from the zone of consideration.”

The Court further added that:

“It has been time and again observed that once a daughter always a daughter while a son might change on account of the fact that he is married and has a wife to look after who could have serious differences with her in-laws. Therefore, in cases of such a situation also, the son would get a right of consideration though married and not on good terms with his parents whereas a married daughter having good relationship with the deceased Government employee and in a position to look after the widow would be excluded.”

Case Title: State of Punjab and Another v. Amarjit Kaur

Case No: LPA-462-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 20

Coram: Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan

Click Here To Read/Download the Order