Komal Rani Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Komal Rani Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents to relook at the petitioner's rejected claim and decide it afresh within 4 months in light of the cited judgments and the amended Scheme; benefit to be granted forthwith if she is found entitled; any adverse order to be passed after hearing and with reasons, leaving her free to seek legal redress.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should reconsider afresh the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, rejected solely on the premise that she is a married daughter, in light of the judgments declaring Clause (c) of Note-I of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointments, 2002 ultra vires and the subsequent amendment substituting 'daughter' for 'unmarried daughter'.

Court's answer

Learned State counsel, on instructions, stated that the respondents would not be averse to having a relook at the matter and deciding it afresh within a period of 4 months, and the Court proceeded on that basis.

Ratio / Principle

The matter stands disposed of accordingly; if the petitioner is found entitled, the benefit is to be granted forthwith.

Key takeaways

Any order adverse to the petitioner is to be passed only after granting her an opportunity of hearing and shall contain reasons, whereupon she remains free to seek legal redress.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment - married daughter - rejection of claim solely on the ground of being a married daughter directed to be reconsidered. Petitioner's claim had been rejected only because she is a married daughter. Counsel relied on Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab (CWP-2218-2017, decided 17.01.2020), in which this Court struck down Clause (c) of Note-I of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointments, 2002 as ultra vires Articles 14 & 15; that ruling was upheld in LPA-462-2021 (25.01.2023) and the SLP (No. 9356-2023) against it was dismissed on 18.10.2023; it was followed in Jaspreet Kaur vs. State of Punjab (CWP-24591-2021, decided 24.07.2023); and by Notification dated 29.01.2024 the phrase 'unmarried daughter' in Note 1(c) was substituted with 'daughter'. On instructions, State counsel undertook that the respondents were not averse to relooking at the matter and deciding it afresh within 4 months. Matter disposed of: benefit to be granted forthwith if the petitioner is found entitled; any adverse order to be passed after hearing and with reasons.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

235

CWP-5688-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.07.2025

Komal Rani

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

*********

Present : Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate for the petitioner

Ms. Shruti, AAG Punjab

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1 . Learned counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner rejected only on the premise that she is a married daughter, which has since been decided by this Court in Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab , CWP-2218-2017, decided on 17.01.2020, wherein this Court after taking a holistic view of the object of the policy, declared Clause (c) of Note-I of Scheme for compassionate appointments2002 as ultra vires of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India and struck it off, which was upheld by the Division Bench in LPA-462-2021, vide judgment dated 25.01.2023 and has attained finality up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court wherein SLP No. 9356-2023, challenging the same was also dismissed on 18.10.2023. The afore-referred was also followed in Jaspreet Kaur vs. State of Punjab , CWP-24591-2021, decided on 24.07.2023. Pursuant thereto, vide Notification dated 29.01.2024, an amendment has been carried out in Note 1 (c) of para 3 of the said Scheme, wherein the phrase "unmarried daughter" has been substituted with the word "daughter". He, on instructions, prays that the matter be

MOHIT 2025.07.10 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5688-2022 (O&M)

-2-

reconsidered in light of the aforesaid judgments, in a time bound manner.

The aforesaid facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned State counsel, on instructions, states that the respondents would not be averse to having a relook at the matter and decided afresh within a period of 4 months, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner.

The aforesai d satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioner .

The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioner is found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to her interest, the same may be passed after granting opportunity of hearing to her and shall contain reasons, whereupon she shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon .

10.07.2025	(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes / No
Whether reportable	: Yes / No

MOHIT 2025.07.10 19:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document