JUDGMENT : By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) That the impugned order of rejection dated 10.11.2014 which was received by the applicant under RTI in the year 2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment on the post of Clerk for which he is legally entitled.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of present petition are as under : Father of the petitioner, namely, Shri Khajana Ram, was serving as a Beldar in Arki Division of Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department on regular basis. He died in harness on 17.05.2007. After the death of his father, the petitioner applied for job under the Policy of the Government regarding employment on compassionate grounds. The application was submitted by the petitioner in the year 2008. Initially, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Government on the ground that the same did not meet the financial income criteria so fixed by the Government in terms of the Department of Personnel’s instructions dated 24.08.2002 and 02.09.2002. This was followed again by a representation made to the authorities by the mother of the petitioner, wherein a request was made to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds in the circumstances. Record demonstrates that thereafter the petitioner again applied for appointment on compassionate basis in terms of application A-6, but through the information which was obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, i.e., Annexure A-7, the petitioner came to know that his application was again rejected and it is in these circumstances that present petition has been filed. 3. In the reply filed to the petition, it stands averred therein that after the death of Shri Khajana Ram, the petitioner applied for job on compassionate grounds in the year 2008 for the post of Clerk. The deceased had left behind four family members, i.e., his wife, two sons and a daughter. The daughter was stated to be married. The annual family income of the applicant/petitioner at the relevant time was found to be Rs.95,122/- in terms of the income certificate issued by the office of Tehsildar on 11.09.2013. The deceased had left behind four family members, i.e., his wife, two sons and a daughter. The daughter was stated to be married. The annual family income of the applicant/petitioner at the relevant time was found to be Rs.95,122/- in terms of the income certificate issued by the office of Tehsildar on 11.09.2013. Annual income fixed as per Government/Finance Department w.e.f. August, 2013 was Rs.1,25,000/- for a family of four or more dependents with individual income of Rs.31,250/- per annum. In the case of the petitioner, the individual annual income come to Rs.31,707/- and therefore in these circumstances, the family of the deceased Government servant was not found to in indigent condition and this has led to the rejection of the claim of the petitioner. 4. In terms of the last order passed by the Court, the record vide which the case of the petitioner was considered by the Department for grant of compassionate appointment stands produced. Perusal thereof demonstrates that after the death of the father of the deceased, when the petitioner applied for job, then as per the income certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Arki, dated 19.12.2008, the annual income of the family of the deceased from all sources was shown as Rs.33,800/-. To this, the amount which the family started getting as pension was also added and the annual income of the family thus went to Rs.53,280/-. As per the Notings, the annual income of the family of the deceased was thus found to be within the prescribed limit of Rs.75,000/- per annum, by taking the family of the deceased consisting of three members at the relevant time, i.e., wife and two sons. On these bases, the case was recommended for the approval of the Finance Department. The rejection of the case of the petitioner in terms of the communication received from the Finance Department was for the reason that grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner did not meet the financial/income criteria fixed by the Government. Thereafter, the case was re-submitted, as has been mentioned hereinabove, but in terms of the reply filed by the State, in view of the individual income of the family of the deceased being assessed to be Rs.31,707/- , the case of the petitioner has been rejected. 5. Thereafter, the case was re-submitted, as has been mentioned hereinabove, but in terms of the reply filed by the State, in view of the individual income of the family of the deceased being assessed to be Rs.31,707/- , the case of the petitioner has been rejected. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the pleadings as well as the documents on record as also the record produced by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the respondents of denying appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds is harsh. The Court is making this observation for the reason that it is the case of the respondent-Department itself that had the income of the individual member of the deceased family been assessed at Rs.31,250/- or less, then the petitioner would have been eligible for appointment on compassionate basis, but as the income was found to be Rs.31,707/-, i.e., about Rs.450/- more than the cut off limit per member, therefore, the case of the petitioner stands rejected. 6. This Court wants to make an observation that when the deceased was survived by his wife, two sons and a daughter, then not considering the daughter to be a part of the family of the deceased so as to assess as to whether the per person annual income of the family members of the deceased falls within the prescribed limit or not, is arbitrary. Simply because the daughter is married, this does not means that she loses her identity as member of the family of her father. The Court is making this observation for the reason that 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. In case the criteria fixed by the Government is taken to its logical conclusion, then the factual position is that a girl by virtue of marriage loses her identity both as a daughter of her father as well as a member of her husband’s family, for the purpose of being counted as a family member to assess the income of the members of the deceased family for compassionate appointment. This in the considered view of the Court is arbitrary and discriminatory. This in the considered view of the Court is arbitrary and discriminatory. There is no rationale as to why a daughter after marriage should not be counted as member of the family for the purpose of assessing the annual family income for compassionate appointment. 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 practised by the State. Therefore, in these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the annual family income of the deceased in the present case has to be assessed by considering the strength of the family to be four, i.e., wife, two sons and a daughter. The Policy has to be read down as such. Now, if the number of the family is taken to be as four, then if a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- is divided by four, there is no dispute that individual annual income per family member comes to less than Rs.31,250/-. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by holding that the act of the respondent-State considering the income of the individual family member of the deceased to be Rs.31,707/- by ignoring the daughter of the deceased, while taking into consideration the number of the family members/dependents is arbitrary and mandamus is issued to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis as per his qualification, as from the date of filing of the petition. The appointment of the petitioner from the said date shall be deemed to be notional for all intents and purposes, including monetary and actual benefits thereupon shall accrue to the petitioner as from the date of appointment, which shall be offered to the petitioner not later than 15th July, 2022. With this observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.