Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1806 (HP)

Prahalad Mishra v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-12-04

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner’s father died in harness on 25.4.2006. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his case for appointment on compassionate basis on 8.2.2007. The same has been rejected by the respondent-Department on 28.9.2013 on the ground that case of the petitioner does not meet the financial/income criteria fixed by the Government in Finance Department. 2. Mr. V.D. Khidta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the competent authority by including pensionary benefits while computing the annual income of the family of the petitioner. Income of the petitioner’s family as per the reply is Rs.1,07,078/-. 3. It is settled law by now that while computing the income of family for the purpose of compassionate appointment, the pensionery/retiral benefits should not be taken into consideration. 4. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, (2005) 10 SCC 289 , while dealing with almost similar situation has held as under : “6…….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. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules…….” 5. This Court in Kumari Savita Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others, latest HLJ 2011 (HP) 739 has taken a view that while considering the applications for giving appointment on compassionate grounds, pension received by the family is not to be computed for the purpose of determining the income of the family. 6. Similar view has been taken by this Court in CWP No. 9965 of 2011 titled as Vikas Kumar vs. State of H.P., decided on 28.8.2012, CWP No. 4852 of 2013, titled as Ashwani Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 29.7.2013 and CWP No. 9637 of 2013, titled as Parvinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 2.1.2014. 7. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-7 dated 28.9.2013 is set aside. 7. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-7 dated 28.9.2013 is set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in view of the law laid down in the judgments cited hereinabove, within a period of 10 weeks from today by ignoring family pension/retiral benefits. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.