Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 233 (HP)

Sumesh Kumar v. State of H. P.

2014-03-21

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J (oral) Petitioner’s father late Sh.Nasib Singh Patwari, who was working as a Patwari died in harness on 07.02.2009. After the death of his father petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. His request stands rejected by the respondents on the ground that income of the family is more than Rs.1,00,000/-, the limit prescribed under the Policy and as such petitioner is ineligible. 2. Noticeably, while determining the income of the family to be more than Rs.1,00,000/-, the maximum prescribed criteria, respondents have taken into account pension which the family was receiving from the respondents. 3. The Apex Court in Govind Prakash Verma Versus 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.” 4. Even this Court in Kumari Savita Sharma Versus 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. 5. As such, impugned order dated 08.7.2013 (Annexure P-6) is quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s case afresh. Petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate basis as per Policy, existing and prevalent on the date of receipt of application. 6. In view of the aforesaid, respondents shall consider the petitioner’s case for appointment to the posts, lying vacant, to which petitioner is eligible and could have been appointed. Needful be done within one month from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment. All consequential actions shall follow. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.