Compassionate appointments must be governed by the policy in effect at the time of the employee's death, not by subsequent amendments.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep Sharma, J.)

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:

“(i) Writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to regularize he services of the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 17.03.2022 alongwith all consequential benefits.

(ii) Writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent corporation to regularize the services of the petitioner’s husband on 20/07/17 on completion of eight years of service from the date of his initial appointment on contract basis i.e. 20/07/2019 alongwith all consequential benefits.”

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that though petitioner ought to have been appointed on regular basis on compassionate grounds, but she has been wrongly granted the appointment on daily wage basis.

3. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record, are that late husband of the petitioner was engaged on contract basis against the post of driver in the respondent-corporation on 20.7.2009, however, unfortunately, he expired on 29.5.2018. Since petitioner was fully dependent upon the earnings of her late husband, she filed representation for compassionate appointment with the respondent-Corporation.

4. Taking note of the adverse family circumstances of the petitioner, respondent-Corporation considered the case of the petitioner for compassionate grounds in terms of policy dated 16.4.2021, wherein provision was made to give compassionate appointment on daily wage basis. In nutshell, claim of the petitioner is that since her late husband had expired on 29.5.2018, policy of year 2019, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in as much as provision was made to grant compassionate appointment on daily wage basis ought not have been applied in the case of the petitioner, rather case of the petitioner should have been considered in terms of the policy in vogue at the time of death of her husband.

5. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, Respondent-Corporation has filed reply, wherein facts as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed. Claim as put forth in the petition has been sought to be defeated by the Respondent- Corporation on the ground that the policy of 2019, under which case of the petitioner was considered, there was only provision to give appointment on daily wage basis. Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, further submitted that though case of the petitioner has been rightly considered in terms of the policy of 2019, but even otherwise she is estopped to file petition for the reason that she has accepted the appointment on daily wage basis, without any reservations.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein was found eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds on account of death of her husband, who was appointed as driver on contract basis in the year 2009. It is also not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner expired in May 2018 and as such, application, if any, filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was required to be considered in terms of policy prevalent in the year 2018. At the time of death of the petitioner, though policy issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1990, amended from time to time, was in vogue, but ultimately case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds came to be considered under the policy of 2019, wherein for the first time, provision came to be made that all appointments on compassionate grounds shall be made on daily wage basis. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner has been given appointment against a Class-IV post, but question which needs to be determined in the instant proceedings is that “whether policy of 2019 could be made applicable in the case of