Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
PARKASH CHAND – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.977 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.28355 of 2016)
Decided on : 17-01-2019
(1994) 4 SCC 138; (2004) 7 SCC 271; (2004) 7 SCC 265; (2007) 4 SCC 778; (2008) 11 SCC 384; (2012) 11 SCC 307; (2014) 15 SCC 739; (2015) 7 SCC 412 – Relied upon
(2005) 10 SCC 289 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The father of the respondent died on 4 January 1997, while in service of the State. On the date of the death of his father, the respondent was a minor. He attained the age of majority on 17 November, 2002. The application submitted by the respondent upon attaining the age of majority was processed, but was eventually rejected on 25 April, 2008 on the ground that the brother of the respondent is already in the service of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board.
The High Court has observed that the State should consider cases for appointment on compassionate basis by dealing with the applications submitted by sons, or as the case may be, daughters of deceased government employees, even though, one member of the family is engaged in the service of the government or an autonomous board or corporation.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned order is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court dated 6 October 2015.
3. The father of the respondent who was working as a Peon in the Revenue Department of the State, died on 4 January 1997, while in service. On the date of the death of his father, the respondent was a minor. He attained the age of majority on 17 November, 2002. The policy of compassionate appointment framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, inter alia, contains a stipulation that where none of the children of a deceased government employee have attained the age of majority at the time of the death of the employee, an application can be submitted on the attainment of the age of twenty one years by the eldest child. This provision is contained in paragraph 8 of the policy dated 18 January 1990. The application submitted by the respondent upon attaining the age of majority was processed, but was eventually rejected on 25 April, 2008 on the ground that the brother of the respondent is already in the service of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board. The fact that the brother of the respondent is employed with a State undertaking is not in dispute.
4. In the writ petition before the High Court, the respondent urged that his brother was living separately and relied on a ration card and a certificate issued by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. The fact that the brother was residing separately for seventeen years was admitted in the Writ Petition in the following terms:
“...Because the elder brother of the petitioner was living separately and no family member of the petitioner is in Govt./Semi Govt. service, which fact is clear from the certificate issued by the competent authority, copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure P7. The ration card of the family of the petitioner clearly shows that the elder brother of the petitioner is not residing with the petitioner, copy of ration card is annexed herewith as Annexure-P8. The Pradhan concerned has also certified that the elder brother of the petitioner is residing separately for the last 17 years, which fact is clear from the certificate, copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure-P9.”
5. The respondent, in the reliefs which were sought in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought a direction for setting aside the letter of rejection dated 25 April, 2008 and for his appointment as a Peon on compassionate grounds.
6. The Policy framed by the State Government contains the following conditions of eligibility in paragraph 5(c):
“In all cases where one or more members of the family are already in government service or in employment of autonomous bodies/bodies/ boards/corporations etc. of the State/Central Government, employment assistance should not under any circumstances be provided to the second or third member of the family. In cases, however, where the widow of the deceased government servant represents or claims that her employed sons/daughters are not supporting her, the request of employment assistance should be considered only in respect of the widow. Even for allowing compassionate appointment to the widow in such cases the opinion of the department of personnel, and finance Department should specifically be sought and the matter finally decided by the Council of Ministers.”
7. In the batch of cases which has been disposed of by the High Court, one of the issues which were framed for decision was as follows:
“(ix) In case one or more dependants of a deceased-employee is/are in service, though living separately, whether that can be made a ground to deny compassionate appointment to the other dependant of the deceased-employee?”
8. The policy contains a stipulation that where one or more persons of the family are already in the employment of the State Government or of autonomous bodies, Boards, Corporations, etc. of the State or the Central Government, employment assistance should not be provided to another member of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
