Daughter will not cease to be member of family merely because she is married: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Merely because a daughter is married, she would not lose her identity as a member of her father's family for assessment of family income, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held while hearing a case seeking compassionate appointment [Rakesh Humar v State of Himachal Pradesh]..Justice Ajay Mohan Goel stated that not counting a daughter as a family member for assessing annual income was arbitrary and discriminatory and would amount to perpetuating gender inequality. "In case the criteria so fixed by the Government is given the stamp of approval by the Court, then the Court will also become a party to this gender inequality, being practiced by the State," the judge emphasised..The Court was hearing a petition challenging an order passed by the respondents denying the son of a deceased government employee compassionate appointment on the ground that the family did not meet the income criteria fixed by the government.The respondents had stated that the individual income of the family members was calculated to be ₹31, 707 and the son would be eligible for compassionate appointment only if the individual income was less than ₹31,250. However, this assessment excluded the married daughter of the deceased as a family member. .Justice Goel opined that when the deceased was survived by his wife, two sons and a daughter, not considering the daughter to assess whether the family's income fell within the prescribed limit, was arbitrary..It was pointed out that if the criteria of the government is taken to its logical conclusion, then a woman by virtue of marriage, would lose her identity both as a daughter or a member of her husband's family for the assessment of income. "It is not as if on account of the marriage of the sons of the deceased, the wives of the sons of the deceased stand included as family members for this purpose," the judge explained. .With this, the court said that the number of family members to considered in this case was four. Thus, there was no dispute that individual annual income came to less than the prescribed limit of ₹31,250.Consequently, the petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to offer the petitioner compassionate appointment as per his qualifications..Advocate VD Khidtta appeared for the petitioner while the respondents were represented by Additional Advocate Generals Sumesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur and Assistant Advocate General JS Bagga..[Read Judgment]