Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1011 (HP)

AVINASH CHAUHAN v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-12-09

DEV DARSHAN SUD, DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2013
ORDER : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of the respondents denying him compassionate appointment. It is undisputed before us that the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment/assistance in accordance with law. There is no dispute that petitioner's father died in harness in the year 2006. On the application submitted by the petitioner, two orders Annexures P-15 and P-16 dated 20.10.2012 and 22.11.2012 were issued. Annexure P-15 is a communication addressed to the Deputy Director of Higher Education in which it has been stated that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as it does not meet the financial criteria so fixed by the Government. Annexure P-16 is a communication addressed to the petitioner by Director of Higher Education stating that by the communication dated 27.7.2012 it has been conveyed that his family income does not meet the financial criteria applicable. 2. In reply, the respondents have strongly opposed the grant of relief on the ground that the family income of the petitioner's family is Rs. 96,000/- as pleaded by the respondents, which seems sufficient to meet the needs of the family and is not within the limit of Rs. 50,000/- as fixed. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is admitted that the father of the petitioner was serving as a P.E.T., who died on 13.9.2006 and that the petitioner being the elder son immediately applied for compassionate appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in Smt. Phoolwati Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1991 SC 469 , held that the pension component is not to be taken for consideration in calculating the dependency of the family. 5. Similar is the decision in Anil Kumar Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Another, where again the Court on consideration of Balbir Kaur and Another Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others, (2000) 6 SCC 493 , held that the amount paid under the Family Benefit Scheme, gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the provident funds paid under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 cannot be the basis for denying compassionate appointment. In the case of Kumari Savita Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2011) 1 ShimLC 536 lays down the same principle. 6. In the case of Kumari Savita Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2011) 1 ShimLC 536 lays down the same principle. 6. Learned counsel also relies on the decision the Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, 2005 (10) SCC 289 , holding:-- 6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee... ... ... (p. 291) If that be the sole ground for rejection, in the circumstances, we quash and set aside Annexures P-15 and P-16 and hold that two orders do not detail the facts holding that the income of the petitioner is Rs. 63,000/- (Annexure P-16), in fact we find Annexure P-16 to be a non-speaking and terse order without in any manner forms any ground for decision. Writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the policy prevalent at the time when the father of the petitioner died in terms of the law supra.