Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Babu Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of HP & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 8171 of 2024
Decided On : 11-03-2024
Compassionate Appointment - Government Policy - Policy of year 1991, 2013, 2019 - The court discussed the policy for compassionate appointment applicable at the time of death of the deceased employee and its relevance to the petitioner's repeated applications for compassionate appointment. The court highlighted that the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee is the only criteria to be considered for compassionate appointment, and subsequent policies cannot be looked into. The court also emphasized that the date of death of the employee is a fixed factor that does not change, and the date of consideration of the application of the dependent should not be the deciding factor for the applicability of a modified scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, a regular Beldar in HPPWD, Division Nahan. The department rejected the petitioner's application multiple times based on the family's income exceeding the prescribed limit in the relevant policies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, emphasizing that the policy prevalent at the time of the deceased employee's death is the only criteria to be considered for compassionate appointment. The court dismissed the petition and pending miscellaneous applications.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's repeated applications for compassionate appointment should be considered under the policy in vogue at the time of his father's death or under subsequent policies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the policy prevalent at the time of the deceased employee's death is the only criteria to be considered for compassionate appointment, and subsequent policies cannot be looked into. The date of death of the employee is a fixed factor that does not change, and the date of consideration of the application of the dependent should not be the deciding factor for the applicability of a modified scheme.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and pending miscellaneous applications were also dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 11.08.2022, (Annexure P3), whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to offer him appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father, came to be rejected on the ground that income of the family of the petitioner exceeds the income limit prescribed in the policy for appointment framed by the Government of the Himachal Pradesh applicable in the relevant year, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and direct respondents to offer him appointment on account of compassionate ground.
2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed reply. Though, opportunity was granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder, but the same was not availed.
3. Precisely, the undisputed facts, which emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the parties, are that late father of the petitioner, while serving as regular Beldar in HPPWD, Division Nahan, died in harness on 17.08.2010 and thereafter, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in year 2013. However, department after having considered the case of the petitioner in terms of policy framed in year 2013, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that annual income of the family at the time of death of the father of the petitioner was more than prescribed limit. Since income of the family of the petitioner at the time of death of his father was Rs. 1,10,000/ and income criteria fixed for appointment in the year 2013 was Rs. 75,000/, case of the petitioner was rejected. Interestingly, the petitioner never laid challenge to order dated 12.02.2015 and thereafter, he again filed an application on 07.03.2019, thereby making request for compassionate appointment, however, same also came to be rejected vide order dated 16.03.2021 on the same ground that income of the family of the deceased employee was more than prescribed limit. Even aforesaid order dated 27.07.2021 was not laid challenge. Again vide application dated 11.03.2020, petitioner made request to department to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds being ward of deceased Sh. Mansa Ram, who admittedly died in harness on 17.08.2010. Aforesaid prayer again came to be rejected vide order dated 06.08.2022 (Annexure P3) on the ground that annual income of the family of the deceased employee was more than the prescribed limit.
4. Mr. A.K Gupta, learned counsel representing petitioner vehemently argued that application filed by petitioner for compassionate appointment in year 2022 is/ was required to be considered in terms of policy in vogue i.e. policy of year 2019, wherein minimum income has enhanced from Rs. 75,000/ to Rs. 2,25,000/. He submitted that since as per own case of respondents annual income of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs. 1,10,000/, case of the petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment in terms of policy of year 2019.
5. Mr. B.C Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned action of the respondents, vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. He stated that the application filed in year 2013 stood rejected in 2015 itself on the ground that annual income of the deceased employee at the time of his death was more than prescribed limit and as such, present petition is otherwise not maintainable. He submitted that mere filing of application in year 2022 would not entitle petitioner to claim compassionate appointment in terms of policy circulated in year 2019, especially when earlier on two occasions prior to year 2022, his case was considered and rejected in terms of policy in vogue at that relevant time.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds no illegal
The policy for compassionate appointment must evaluate criteria based on circumstances at the time of the employee's death, not subsequent income limits.
Proper consideration of compassionate appointment cases in accordance with the applicable government policies, affording an opportunity of hearing, and passing speaking orders.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amended Rules of 2019 applied to pending cases, and the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment based on the financial condi....
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly following a breadwinner's death; delayed applications undermine their purpose.
The compassionate appointment policy must be applied based on the conditions at the time of the employee's death, not retrospectively.
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and is meant to provide immediate help to the family of the deceased breadwinner. Appointment on compassionate ground is a concession and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the policy regarding compassionate appointment and the applicability of subsequent amendments to the case of the petitioner.
Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a legal right, and requires compliance with specific provisions while emphasizing immediate application to demonstrate need.
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
