Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
Shubham Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No.166 of 2019
Decided On : 27-06-2024
Compassionate Appointment - Writ Petition - Dying in Harness Rules - The court interpreted the compassionate appointment scheme and its applicability based on the date of the employee's death, concluding that the scheme in effect at that time governs entitlement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after his father's death while in service. The Insurance Company denied the request, stating the compassionate appointment scheme was not in effect at the time of death, offering instead a lumpsum compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compassionate appointment scheme was not applicable as it was not in force at the time of the father's death, and the petitioner was entitled only to lumpsum compensation as per the existing policy.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment under the scheme that was not in effect at the time of his father's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the scheme for compassionate appointment must be applied based on the rules in effect at the time of the employee's death, and since the scheme was not in force, the petitioner was not entitled to appointment.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed, and the Insurance Company is directed to pay lumpsum compensation to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by respondent No.2, whereby, he has been denied compassionate appointment and further, a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground under Dying in-Harness Rules on a suitable post, according to his educational qualification forthwith.
3. The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary details are that the father of the petitioner was employed as Administrative Officer with the respondents-Insurance Company at Divisional Office, Bijnor. Petitioner’s father died still while in service on 16.04.2013, leaving behind the petitioner (son), his wife Smt. Indresh Devi, Smt. Monika (married daughter) and two unmarried daughters-Km. Soniya and Km. Shivani. The widow of the deceased employee of the respondents-Company Smt. Indresh Devi had moved an application to the respondent No.3-Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Annexxure No.7) on 23.03.2014, requesting therein to offer compassionate appointment to his son-the petitioner. The said application remained pending and undecided, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition No.1760 of 2017 (S/S) Shubham Kumar Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2017, giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Competent Authority within a period of two weeks’ from the date of passing that order and the Competent Authority was further directed to examine petitioner’s claim and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of presentation of certified copy of that order.
4. Petitioner submitted a representation on 25.08.2017 in compliance of the above direction of this Court. The respondent-Insurance Company vide impugned order dated 28.09.2017 came up with a case that the Insurance Company has never received any application for compassionate appointment or for lump-sum monetary compensation, yet the representation was rejected by the respondent-Insurance Company vide impugned order on merits.
5. It is further reflected from the order dated 28.09.2017 that the compassionate appointment was denied to the petitioner simply for the reason that the scheme for compassionate appointment was dispensed with in the Insurance Company w.e.f.01.06.2002 until 31.10.2014 and since, during that period, the scheme for Lumpsum Monetary Compensation was in vogue in lieu of the compassionate appointment, it is stated by the respondent-Insurance Company in the impugned order that the petitioner is entitled to get a Lumpsum Monetary Compensation instead of compassionate appointment, as his father died on 16.04.2013, when the scheme was not there.
6. It is feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner is before this Court.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-Insurance Company on 10.04.2014 and it has been categorically stated in the said counter affidavit that the father of the petitioner was expired on 16.04.2013 and on the date of his death, no scheme for compassionate appointment was in force. In Para 4 of the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that earlier, the scheme of compassionate appointment was dispensed by the Company w.e.f. 01.06.2002 until 31.10.2014. A new scheme for compassionate appointment was brought by the respondent-Insurance Company in the year 2014 w.e.f. 01.11.2014. Since, father of the petitioner died in between when the scheme for compassionate appointment was not in vogue in the Insurance Company, therefore, he is only entitled to get Lumpsum Monetary Compensation instead of compassionate appointment as per the scheme prevailing during that tim
Compassionate appointment claims are governed by the scheme in effect at the time of the employee's death, and not by subsequent schemes.
Compassionate appointment claims must be evaluated under the policies in effect at the time of the employee's demise, not subsequent schemes.
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly following a breadwinner's death; delayed applications undermine their purpose.
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and can only be granted based on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and eligibility criteria. No aspirant has a right t....
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in public services and must be strictly in accordance with the prevalent rules, subject to the financial position of the f....
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
