Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 90
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Tarlok Singh Chauhan, JJ.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation - Appellant
versus
Lekh Ram and Ors. – Respondents
LPA 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 of 2015
Decided on: 27.02.2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr.V.D. Khidta, Advocate.
The policy for compassionate appointment is applicable based on the time of the first application, regardless of the date of death of the employee or the date of application.
Headnote:
Policy Applicability - Compassionate Appointment - The court directed the examination of cases in light of the policy prevailing at the time of application for compassionate appointment, as per the decision in Surinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. The date of death of the employee and the date of application were considered irrelevant, and the policy at the time of the first application was deemed applicable.
Fact of the Case:
The court directed the examination of cases of the writ petitioners in light of the policy prevailing at the time of application for compassionate appointment, as per the decision in Surinder Kumar vs. State of H.P.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the date of death of the employee and the date of application were irrelevant, and the policy at the time of the first application was deemed applicable.
Issues: Applicability of policy for compassionate appointment, relevance of date of death and date of application, and determination of policy for reconsidered cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The date of death of the employee and the date of application were considered irrelevant, and the policy at the time of the first application was deemed applicable.
Final Decision: The court directed the examination of cases in light of the decision in Surinder Kumar’s case and the observations made, and instructed the respondents to make a decision within six weeks.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
All these appeals are directed against the judgments, dated 29th October, 2014 and 5th November, 2014, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the writ respondents (appellants herein) to examine the cases of the writ petitioners in light of the orders of appointment i.e. Annexure P-12, Annexure P-10, Annexures P-14 & P-15, Annexure P-9, and Annexures P-24 and P-25, annexed with respective writ petitions, which were also not in consonance with the policy prevailing at the relevant point of time for making appointments on compassionate ground.
2. At this stage, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners (respondents herein) stated that it is a fact that the impugned judgments, in so far as they relate to examining the case of the writ petitioners in accordance with the offer of appointment are concerned, the same are not legally correct. It was further submitted that the instant Letters Patent Appeals may be disposed of by directing the respondents to examine the cases of the writ petitioners in light of the policy which was prevailing at the time when the writ petitioners approached the writ respondents for employment on compassionate ground.
3. The controversy viz. a viz. applicability of the policy stands settled by this Court in its latest decision in Surinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, Latest HLJ 2016 (HP)(DB) 113, wherein, amongst others, following two questions were framed by this Court:
“(ii) Which date would be relevant viz. a viz. applicability of the Policy - whether the date of death of the employee or the date when the application was presented, for the first time, for seeking employment on compassionate ground or the date on which the application came up for consideration before the Authorities, and whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be decided on the basis of subsequent amendment, when the application was presented prior to such amendment?
(iii) If an applicant was in lis and his case was directed to be reconsidered, whether the claim of such applicant is to be determined as per the policy which was existing at the time of passing the order or as per the policy which was in place at the time of staking claim for the first time or as per the policy existing at the time of consideration?”
4. After dilating upon different decisions of the Apex Court, this Court held that the case of the applicant would be considered as per the provisions of the Policy prevalent at the time when, for the first time, the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made to the Department. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 63 and 64 of the said decision hereunder:
“63. Applying the ratio to the cases in hand and keeping in view the provisions of the Policy in question, we hold that the date of death of the employee is not to be taken into consideration while seeing the applicability of the Policy. Similarly, the date on which the application comes up for consideration before the competent Authority is also of no importance, since, because of the lackadaisical approach of the Departments, such cases may have been kept pending for a pretty long time and during that period, the policy may have been amended. Thus, the applicants, in such circumstances, cannot be made to suffer for the inaction on the part of the Authorities.
64. Accordingly, we hold that the case of the applicant would be governed by the provisions of the Policy which was in place at the time when the application, for the first time, was made by the applicant to the Department, and in the case of a minor, the right to apply would commence from the date he/she attained majority, as given in the Scheme and his/her application would be considered as per the Policy/Scheme which was in vogue at the time of presenting the application. In the matters where the Court or the Tribunal has directed the Authorities to consider the case of the applicant afresh, the claim of
