Back
2020 Supreme(HP) 665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sureshwar Thakur, Chander Bhusan Barowalia, JJ.
Ankit - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Civil Write Petition (Oa) No. 8056 of 2019
Decided On : 24-11-2020
Naresh K Tomar, Advocate, Hemant Vaid, Advocate, Ashwani Sharma, Advocate
The court upheld the government policy on compassionate appointments and validated the income criteria, emphasizing the purpose of alleviating financial distress in the bereaved family.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Government Policy - Paragraph 2(a), Paragraph 4, Paragraph 8, Paragraph 10(c) - The court discussed the relevant provisions of the government policy on compassionate appointments, including the applicability, time limits, and income criteria. The court also referenced a decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court validating the income limit and inclusion of pension/family pension within the criteria.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after the demise of his father, a Forest Guard. The application was returned due to shortcomings, but the petitioner claimed mandamus for appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was not valid as the family pension received by the petitioner's grandmother exceeded the income criteria. The court also noted the petitioner's failure to address the shortcomings in the application since 2011.
Issues: Validity of claim for compassionate appointment, applicability of government policy, and income criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The purpose of compassionate appointments is to alleviate financial distress or indigence in the bereaved family. The court upheld the government policy on income criteria and validated the inclusion of pension/family pension within the criteria.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was found to be without merit.
JUDGMENT
Per Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The predecessor-in-interest, of the petitioner, namely one Surender Kumar, as, divulged by his death certificate, appended with the writ petition, as, Annexure A-1, died on 20.3.2006. At the afore phase, he was performing duties, as, a Forest Guard, under, the respondents. Consequently, since in contemporaneity, visa-vis, the occurrence of demise, of his predecessor-ininterest, the petitioner was a minor, thereupon, upon his attaining majority, in the year 2011, he applied, for compassionate appointment, in consonance with, the then prevalent apposite scheme, hence formulated by the respondents. However, the afore application remained not completely processed, rather, it became returned, through Annexure A-5, to the writ petitioner, for the latter, overcoming the recited therein shortcomings.
2. The writ petitioner, has uncontrovertedly failed to remove all the shortcomings, in his application, as became asked, for, to be removed, through Annexure A-5. However, yet, the writ petitioner claims, for, the issuance of a mandamus, upon, the respondent(s), for the latter(s), making his appointment on compassionate ground(s).
3. The legality, of, issuance of the espoused mandamus, upon, the respondents, enjoins an allusion being made, to, the apposite policy, as became formulated by the respondents. The relevant portion(s) thereof, are, extracted hereinafter:-
"1) Policy:- The employment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of Govt. servants who die while in service is not to be provided as a matter of right. It should be given only in deserving cases where the family of deceased Govt. servant is left in indigent circumstances requiring immediate means of subsistence. The concerned Administrative Departments would satisfy themselves about the indigent circumstances of the family before appointment on compassionate grounds is made."
Paragraph 2 of the policy provides for its applicability, in order of priority only to a widow, son or an unmarried daughter and in the case of an unmarried government servant to the father, mother, brother or unmarried sister. Paragraph 2(a) reads as follows:
"2) To whom the policy is applicable:- The employment assistance on compassionate grounds will be allowed in order of priority only to widow or a son or an unmarried daughter (in case of unmarried Govt. servant to father, mother brother and unmarried sister) of:
(a) a Govt. servant who dies while in service (including by suicide) leaving his family in immediate need of assistance."
4. Paragraph 4 of the policy stipulates, that, an appointment, on compassionate grounds, can be made, only to the lowest rung of Class-III and Class-IV posts, carrying a prescribed pay scale. Paragraph 8 of the Policy stipulates that requests for grant of employment assistance should be received within three years from the death of the government servant. However, where none of the children of the deceased government servant, had attained majority, at the time of death, the time limit for receipt of a request, for, appointment will be postponed to the attainment of the age, of, twenty one years, by the eldest son or unmarried daughter. Paragraph 8 is in the following terms:
"8) Belated requests for compassionate appointments: Requests for grant of employment assistance should be received in the Deptt. concerned within three years of the death of the Government servant. In case where none of the sons/daughters of the deceased Government servant attain majority (age of 18 years) at the time of the death of the Government servant, the time limit for receipt of request for employment assistance in department concerned will be attainment of age of 21 years by the eldest son/ unmarried daughter. No relaxation will be allowed in entertaining requests beyond the above age except in the case of sons/ unmarried daughter/widow of deceased Govt. servants belonging to the difficult areas as laid down in the Transfer Policy.
5. Paragraph 10 of t
