Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANRversusSHASHI KUMAR
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 50
- Decided
- 16 January 2019
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- D Y CHANDRACHUD
Holding
Family pension and other welfare benefits must be taken into account under the compassionate‑appointment policy, the income‑slab is a valid objective measure, and the applicant is barred by the delay.
Summary
The father of Shashi Kumar, a horticulture department employee, died in service in 2005. Kumar applied in 2007 for a compassionate appointment, which required the family’s income, including pension, to be disclosed. He filed a writ petition in 2015 after a delay of more than seven years; the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the State could not consider family pension or other terminal benefits and that the Finance Department’s income‑slab was not a valid amendment of the 1990 compassionate‑appointment policy. The Supreme Court held that the policy expressly requires family pension and other welfare benefits to be taken into account when assessing indigent circumstances, that the income‑slab is a permissible objective criterion, and that Kumar’s excessive delay bars his claim. Consequently, the High Court’s direction to disregard pension was set aside and the writ petition dismissed, with the appeal allowed in favour of the State.
Issues considered
- Whether family pension and other terminal benefits can be considered in determining eligibility for compassionate appointment.
- Whether the Finance Department’s fixation of an income‑slab constitutes an amendment of the compassionate‑appointment policy.
- Whether a delay of over seven years in filing a petition bars the applicant from obtaining a compassionate appointment.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.16, s. Art.226
Subjects
compassionate appointmentfamily pensionindigent circumstancesservice lawdelayincome slabpolicy interpretationconstitutional lawArticles 14 and 16public service recruitment
Judgment
432 [2019]
SUPREME COURT 2 S.C.R. 432
REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.
v.
SHASHI KUMAR
(Civil Appeal No.988 of 2019)
B JANUARY 16, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – The State, if
entitled to take into account family pension and other terminal
C
benefits in determining whether compassionate appointment should
be granted to the dependant of a deceased employee – Held: The
terms on which compassionate applications would be considered
are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must
fulfill the terms of the policy – In instant case, policy was formulated
D on 18.01.1990, which was designed to meet the needs of those
families where death of a government servant has left them in indigent
circumstances, requiring immediate means of subsistence – Policy
recognized that the benefits which were received by a family on
account of welfare measures were required to be considered – The
policy did not preclude the dependants of a deceased employee
E
from being considered for compassionate appointment merely
because they are in receipt of family pension – What the Policy
mandated was that the receipt of family pension should be taken
into account in considering whether the family has been left in
indigent circumstances requiring immediate means of subsistence –
F The receipt of family pension is, therefore, one of the considerations
which is to be taken into account.
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Prescription of
income slab – On 18.01.1990, the State Government framed a policy/
scheme for making compassionate appointments – A income criteria/
G income slab was prescribed by the Finance Department by a letter
dated 29.09.2008 – High Court was of the view that it was not open
to the Finance Department to amend the scheme – The State
contended that income slab reduces the element of discretion and
obviates a case by case analysis of what should or should not be
an income criterion for deciding the indigent circumstances of a
H
432
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHASHI KUMAR 433
family – Held: The fixation of an income slab is a measure which A
diluted the element of arbitrariness – Fixation of an income slab
subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the
process of decision making – Circulars issued by the Finance
Department cannot be construed to be an amendment to the policy
– Circulars are explanatory, since they are intended to guide the
B
decision maker on the concept of indigency which is incorporated
in the scheme – Thus, decision of the State Government to fix income
limits confirmed – Further, the State directed to periodically revise
the income limits at intervals of three years or earlier, and consider
whether a revision is warranted having regard to the cost of living,
inflation and other relevant facts and circumstances. C
Delay/Laches – Compassionate appointment – Held: In the
instant case, the respondent waited for a period in excess of seven
years to move a petition u/Art.226 of the Constitution – Supreme
Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal case has emphasized that the basis
of a scheme of compassionate appointment lies in the need of D
providing immediate assistance to the family of the deceased
employee – This sense of immediacy was evidently lost by the delay
on the part of the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment
– Thus, respondent debarred from seeking compassionate
appointment by the delay as well as by the lapse of time.–
Service Law. E
Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 16 – Compassionate
appointment – Held: Compassionate appointment is an exception
to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service
of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord
with Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution – Dependants of a deceased F
employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the Policy on
compassionate appointment.
Father of the respondent, who was working in the
Horticulture Department died in the year 2005 while he was in
service. In 2007, the respondent submitted an application for G
compassionate appointment. The application was forwarded to
the competent authorities. Additional Secretary (Horticulture)
required that a certificate of income, including pension should be
obtained from the concerned SDM by the appellant. In 2015, writ
H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A petition was filed by the respondent. The High Court held that
the State is not entitled to take into account family pension and
other terminal benefits in determining whether compassionate
appointment should be granted to the dependant of a deceased
employee. Hence, the present appeal.
B Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The compassionate appointment is an exception
to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the
service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles
which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
C Dependants of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible
by virtue of the Policy on compassionate appointment. The basis
of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased
employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon
the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the
immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to
D allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. Where the
authority finds that the financial and other circumstances of the
family are such that in the absence of immediate assistance, it
would be reduced to being indigent, an application from a
dependant member of the family could be considered. The terms
E on which such applications would be considered are subject to
the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfill the terms
of the Policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law
that there is no right to compassionate appointment. But, where
there is a policy, a dependant member of the family of a deceased
employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and
F to seek consideration of the application in accordance with the
terms and conditions which are prescribed by the State.
[Para 20] [447-E-H; 448-A-B]
2. The policy in the present case which was formulated on
18 January 1990 categorically speaks of providing employment
G assistance to dependants of government servants who have died
while in service, “leaving their families in indigent
circumstances”. The Policy, in other words, is designed to meet
the needs of those families where the death of a government
servant has left them in indigent circumstances, requiring
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHASHI KUMAR 435
immediate means of subsistence. The policy recognizes that the A
benefits which are received by a family on account of welfare
measures are required to be considered. Among them, the policy
stipulates that family pension and death gratuity are required to
be taken into account in assessing the financial circumstances of
the family. The Policy does not preclude the dependants of a
B
deceased employee from being considered for compassionate
appointment merely because they are in receipt of family pension.
What the Policy mandates is that the receipt of family pension
should be taken into account in considering whether the family
has been left in indigent circumstances requiring immediate means
of subsistence. The receipt of family pension is, therefore, one C
of the considerations which is to be taken into account. Paragraph
10(c) of the Policy sets out the measures provided by the State
which have a bearing on the financial need of the family.
[Para 21][448-B-E]
3. That leads the Court to the next aspect of the matter D
relating to the fixation of an income slab. The fixation of an income
slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of
arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual
case have to be borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of
an income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and
uniformity in the process of decision making. The High Court E
was of the view that it was not open to the Finance Department
to amend the Scheme. The circulars which are issued by the
Finance Department cannot be construed to be an amendment of
the policy. They are really clarificatory of the intent and purpose
of the Scheme. The circulars are explanatory, since they are F
intended to guide the decision maker on the concept of indigency
which is incorporated in the Scheme. [Para 39] [455-D-F]
4. What should be the appropriate income criterion is
undoubtedly a matter of policy for the State Government to
determine. However, it is impressed upon the State Government G
the need to periodically revise the income limits preferably at
intervals of three years. Inflation and the increase in the cost of
living have an important bearing on financial exigencies faced by
families of serving as well as deceased employees. In fixing the
H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A income criteria for considering cases of compassionate
appointment, it would be appropriate if the State revisits the
income limit at periodic intervals. [Para 39] [456-B-C]
5. Insofar as the individual facts pertaining to the
respondent are concerned, it has emerged from the record that
B the Writ Petition before the High Court was instituted on 11 May
2015. The application for compassionate appointment was
submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15 January 2008 the Additional
Secretary had required that the amount realized by way of pension
be included in the income statement of the family. The respondent
waited thereafter for a period in excess of seven years to move a
C petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh Kumar
Nagpal case, this Court has emphasized that the basis of a scheme
of compassionate appointment lies in the need of providing
immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee.
This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part
D of the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment. The
respondent is debarred from seeking compassionate appointment
by the delay as well as by the lapse of time which has taken place.
[Paras 40 and 42] [456-D-F; 457-B]
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC
E 138 ; Union of India v. Shashank Goswami (2012) 11
SCC 307 : [2012] 6 SCR 98 ; State Bank of India v.
Surya Narain Tripathi (2014) 15 SCC 739 – relied on.
Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation
of India (2005) 10 SCC 289 ; APSRTC, Musheerabad
F v. Sarvarunnisa Begum AIR 2008 SCW 198 : [2008] 8
SCR 453 ; Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7
SCC 412 : [2015] 9 SCR 724 ; General Manager
(D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwary (2004) 7 SCC 271 ; Punjab
National Bank v. Ashwani Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC
265 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 597 ; State Bank of India v.
G Somvir Singh (2007) 4 SCC 778 : [2007] 2 SCR 509 ;
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra (2008)
11 SCC 384 : [2008] 5 SCR 241 ; State Bank of India
v. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571 : [2007] 2 SCR
101 ; State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 SCC
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHASHI KUMAR 437
766 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 576 ; Local Administration A
Department v. M. Selvanayagam (2011) 13 SCC 42 :
[2011] 4 SCR 244 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2005) 10 SCC 289 referred to Para 17
B
[2008] 8 SCR 453 referred to Para 17
[2015] 9 SCR 724 referred to Para 17
(1994) 4 SCC 138 relied on Para 23
(2004) 7 SCC 271 referred to Para 25
C
[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 597 referred to Para 27
[2007] 2 SCR 509 referred to Para 27
[2008] 5 SCR 241 referred to Para 30
[2012] 6 SCR 98 relied on Para 31 D
(2014) 15 SCC 739 relied on Para 32
[2007] 2 SCR 101 referred to Para 34
[2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 576 referred to Para 40
[2011] 4 SCR 244 referred to Para 40 E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 988 of
2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.10.2015 of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in CWP No.3652 of 2015.
F
Vikas Mahajan, AAG, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Aakash Verma,
Anil Kumar, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Purnima Krishna,
Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Ajay Marwah, Atul Kumar, Ishan Dewan, Plak
Bagchi, Abhimanyu Sharma, Ishan Dewan, S. K. Verma, Suryanarayana
Singh, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Ms. Kaveri Vats, Varinder Kumar Sharma,
Ms. Radhika Gautam, Rajul Shrivastav, K. Krishna Kumar, Vikrant G
Narayan Vasudeva, Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Iti Sharma, Jay Kr. Bhardwaj,
Ravinder Nain, Puneet Sharma, Jogy Scaria, Reegan S. Bali, Ms. Beena
Victor, Ravi Homod, Veeranjaneyvilu K.L.N.V., Anil Nag, Ravi Bakshi,
Aditya Dhawan, Ms. Kiran Dhawan, Shashank Kumar, Chander Shekhar
H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A Ashri, Jayant Mohan, Sunil Kumar Jain, Abhishek Jain, Ms. Anusha
Agarwal, Punya Garg, Abhishek Jain, Srilok Nath Rath, Y.P. Singh,
Sharan Thakur, Mahesh Thakur, Vijay Kumar Pardesi, Dr. Sushil
Balwada, Karan Chauhan, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Ms.
Divya Jyoti Singh, Vinod Sharma, Pawan Reley, Gopal Prasad, Satish
Kumar, Aravindh S., A. Lakshmi Narayan, Mrs. Nanita Sharma, Vivek
B
Sharma, Bajrang Lal Jat, Baldev Singh, D.S. Patial, Binay Kumar Das,
Yogesh Kumar Mathur, Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, M. C. Dhingra, Piyush
Kant Roy, Ms. Indira Kanora, Gaurav Dhingra, Ms. Shobha Gupta,
Ashwani Kr. Gupta, Vikrant Yadav, P. N. Puri, Reeta Dewan Puri,
Abhishek Puri, Dhiraj, Parmanand Gaur, Ekansh Bansal, Yash Pal
C Dhingra, Baldev Singh, D.S. Patial, Vinay Kumar Das, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Leave
granted.
D
2. The present appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench
of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in a batch of cases which dealt
with the issue of compassionate appointment.
3. The facts, insofar as they are material to this appeal, are thus:
E 4. The father of the respondent, who was working as HFO in the
Horticulture Department at Kullu, died on 29 March 2005 while he was
in service. On 8 May 2007, the respondent submitted an application for
compassionate appointment. The application was forwarded by the
Deputy Director, Horticulture at Kullu to the competent authorities on
F 14 September 2007. On 15 January 2008, the Additional Secretary
(Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh addressed a
communication to the Director of Horticulture stating that the income
certificate which had been forwarded together with the application did
not include the pension which the family was receiving from the
Government. Accordingly, the Additional Secretary required that a
G certificate of income, including pension, should be obtained from the
concerned SDM by the applicant.
5. The Writ Petition before the High Court was instituted on 11
May 2015, well over seven years thereafter. The respondent has averred
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHASHI KUMAR 439
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
that he had made representations, but to no avail, as a result of which he A
was eventually compelled to initiate proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India before the High Court. The High Court
consolidated a batch of cases, both Letters Patent Appeals and Writ
Petitions for hearing. They emanated from a Policy dated 18 January
1990 framed by the State Government for providing employment
B
assistance on compassionate grounds to dependants of government
servants who have died in harness, leaving a family in need of assistance.
The High Court, during the course of the judgment, framed as many as
nine issues which were in the following terms:
“(i) Whether the amount of family pension and other retiral benefits,
received by the family of the deceased-employee, can be C
included in the family income for denying the compassionate
appointment?
(ii) Which date would be relevant for applicability of the Policy -
whether the date of death of the employee or the date when
the application was presented, for the first time, for seeking D
employment on compassionate ground or the date on which the
application came up for consideration before the Authorities,
and whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be
decided on the basis of subsequent amendment, when the
application was presented prior to such amendment? E
(iii) If an applicant was in lis and his case was directed to be
reconsidered, whether the claim of such applicant is to be
determined as per the policy which was existing at the time of
passing the order or as per the policy which was in place at the
time of staking claim for the first time or as per the policy existing F
at the time of consideration?
(iv) Whether the applicant can claim appointment on compassionate
ground against a higher cadre, once he had been appointed in
the lower cadre?
(v) In case a person is appointed on contract basis, whether he is G
within his rights to seek appointment on regular basis?
(vi) In a given set of cases, in one case the appointment on
compassionate ground has been offered against a Class-III post
and in other case, the appointment has been offered to a Class-
IV post, whether it amounts to discrimination? H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A (vii) Whether a person can claim compassionate appointment after
a considerable delay?
(viii) Whether requisite qualification or age can be relaxed?
(ix) In case one or more dependants of a deceased-employee is/
are in service, though living separately, whether that can be made
B a ground to deny compassionate appointment to the other
dependant of the deceased-employee?”
6. Insofar as the present appeal is concerned, the State of
Himachal Pradesh has contested the decision of the High Court on issues
(i) and (vii). Hence, for the purposes of this appeal, the present judgment
C governs only the above aspects of the case.
7. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy, it would be
necessary to advert to the genesis of the policy of the State Government.
8. On 18 January 1990, the Government of Himachal Pradesh
D framed a policy for making compassionate appointments. The policy
indicates that it applies to requests for the appointment of sons, daughters
and near relatives of government servants who die in harness, leaving
the family in immediate need of assistance. Insofar as it is material, the
Policy provides thus:
“Subject;- Appointment of sons/daughters/near relations of a
E
government servant who died in harness, leaving his family in
immediate need of assistance.
...
1) Policy:- The employment on compassionate grounds to the
F dependents of Govt. servants who die while in service is not to be
provided as a matter of right. It should be given only in deserving
cases where the family of deceased Govt. servant is left in indigent
circumstances requiring immediate means of subsistence. The
concerned Administrative Departments would satisfy themselves
about the indigent circumstances of the family before appointment
G on compassionate grounds is made.”
9. Paragraph 2 of the policy provides for its applicability, in order
of priority only to a widow, son or an unmarried daughter and in the case
of an unmarried government servant to the father, mother, brother or
unmarried sister. Paragraph 2(a) reads as follows:
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHASHI KUMAR 441
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
“2) To whom the policy is applicable:- The employment assistance A
on compassionate grounds will be allowed in order of priority only
to widow or a son or an unmarried daughter (in case of unmarried
Govt. servant to father, mother brother and unmarried sister) of:
(a) a Govt. servant who dies while in service (including by
suicide) leaving his family in immediate need of assistance.” B
10. Paragraph 4 of the policy stipulates that an appointment on
compassionate grounds can be made only to the lowest rung of Class-
III and Class-IV posts carrying a prescribed pay scale. Paragraph 8 of
the Policy stipulates that requests for the grant of employment assistance
should be received within three years of the death of the government C
servant. However, where none of the children of the deceased
government servant had attained majority at the time of death, the time
limit for receipt of a request for appointment will be postponed to the
attainment of the age of twenty one years by the eldest son or unmarried
daughter. Paragraph 8 is in the following terms:
D
“8) Belated requests for compassionate appointments: Requests
for grant of employment assistance should be received in the Deptt.
concerned within three years of the death of the Government
servant. In case where none of the sons/daughters of the deceased
Government servant attain majority (age of 18 years) at the time
of the death of the Government servant, the time limit for receipt E
of request for employment assistance in department concerned
will be attainment of age of 21 years by the eldest son/un-married
daughter. No relaxation will be allowed in entertaining requests
beyond the above age except in the case of sons/un-married
daughter/widow of deceased Govt. servants belonging to the F
difficult areas as laid down in the Transfer Policy.
11. Paragraph 10 of the policy stipulates that the government has
introduced a number of welfare measures, which have made a significant
difference to the financial position of families of government servants
who die in harness. Hence, the policy stipulates that benefits received G
by the family on account of those welfare measures “may be kept in
view” while considering cases of employment assistance on
compassionate grounds. The policy proceeds to enumerate the welfare
measures which, on the date of its formulation, were available to families
of deceased employees. Paragraph 10(c) of the Policy, which has a
bearing in this case, is in the following terms: H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A “(c) The provision of employment assistance was introduced in
1958 and since then a number of welfare measures have been
introduced by the Govt. which made significant difference in the
financial position of the families of the Govt. servants dying in
harness. The benefit received by the family on account of these
measures may be kept in view while considering cases of
B
employment assistance on compassionate grounds. Such
measures, in brief, which are at present available to the families
of the deceased employees are as under:
(i) Ad-hoc ex-gratia grant @ 10 times the emoluments which
the Government servant was receiving before death, subject
C to a minimum of Rs. 10,000/- and maximum of Rs. 30,000/-.
(ii) Grant of improved family pension.
(iii) Grant of death Gratuity as under:-
Length of Rate of gratuity
D service
a) Less than 2 times of emoluments.
one year
b) One year 6 times of emoluments.
or more
E
but less than 5 years
c) 5 years or 12 times of emoluments
more but less
than 20 years
F
d) 20 years Half of emoluments for every
or more completed six monthly period of
qualifying service subject to a
maximum of 33 times emoluments
provided that the amount of Death
G Gratuity shall in no case, exceed
one lakh rupees.
(iv) Employees Group Insurance Scheme:- Financial assistance
to the family of the deceased Government servant as under:
(i) Class-IV employees- Rs. 10,000/-
H (ii) Class-III employees- Rs. 20,000/-
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHASHI KUMAR 443
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
(iii) Class-II employees- Rs. 40,000/- A
(iv) Class-I employees- Rs. 80,000/-
(v) In addition nearly 2/3rd of the amount contributed by the
Government servant to the fund is also payable alongwith the
above amounts.
B
(vi) Encashment of the leave at the credit of the deceased Govt.
servant subject to the maximum of 240 days.
(vii) Entitlement of additional amount equal to the average balance
in the GPF of the deceased Govt. servant during the three years
immediately preceding the death of the subscriber subject to certain C
condition under the Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme.”
12. The Policy has undergone amendment from time to time.
On 24 August 2002, a clarification was issued in regard to the
expression “indigent circumstances” used in the Policy. The clarification
provided thus: D
“……in this connection, references have been received from
certain departments enquiring as to what constitutes “Indigent
circumstances” and also requesting that some uniform guidelines
on the subject may be issued.
The matter has been considered carefully and it is noticed E
that specific guidelines with respect to what would amount to
“indigent circumstances” will not be possible or practicable.
“Indigent circumstances” of a family are to be seen with specific
reference to the assets i.e. immoveable and moveable property
left behind by the deceased income from various sources i.e. F
assets, house(s), pension, savings resulting to income employment
status and number of employees within the extended family etc.
as also liabilities i.e. number of dependents specially unmarried
daughters aged parents etc. left behind by the deceased, some
consideration towards the particular standard of life that the family
of the deceased might be used to during the life time of the G
government employee etc. These are vital parameters that have
to be kept in mind before any decision is arrived at regarding
admissibility of employment to the ward/dependent of the deceased
employee. As the above would show the question of “indigent
H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A circumstances”, therefore has to be decided in each individual
case after obtaining detailed information about all the relevant
aspects mentioned, so that employment on compassionate grounds
is not given as matter of routine. While every effort should be
made to provide suitable employment in all deserving cases. It
should always be kept in mind that employment on compassionate
B
ground can not be claimed as a matter of right. Also the competent
authority should take full precautions to exclude the element of
“pick and choose” while considering such cases.”
13. Subsequently, an office memorandum dated 4 April 2008
clarified that while considering whether the family of a deceased
C employee is in indigent circumstances, no certificate of any kind is required.
The clarification, inter alia, provided that:
“3. No indigent certificate of any kind is required as per instructions.
Only indigent circumstances of the family are required to be looked
into. This purpose can be achieved by examining the income of
D the family. There is no such certificate prescribed by the
Government nor should indigent certificate be demanded from
the affected families.”
14. Another aspect of the Policy which requires mention is the
fixation of income slabs. On 1 November 2008, as noticed by the High
E Court, the Secretary, Public Works Department, addressed a
communication to the Engineer-in-Chief adverting to a letter dated 29
September 2008 of the Finance Department, bearing No. PBW-A-B(2)-
34/2006. The income criteria which was prescribed by the Finance
Department was in the following terms:
F “The Income Criteria fixed by the Finance Department takes into
consideration maximum family income ceiling fixed by the finance
Deptt. for a family for 4 members as Rs. 1.00 lac and for smaller
families, the internal criteria is Rs. 25,000/- per person, per annum.
Thus, if there is only one dependent, the overall income limit to be
G considered is Rs. 25,000/- per annum. In case, there are two
dependents of the deceased, the income of the applicant should
not exceed Rs. 50,000/- per annum. In case of three dependents,
the overall income should not exceed Rs. 75,000/- per annum.
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHASHI KUMAR 445
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
The overall income limit is Rs. 1.00 lac per annum, even if family A
size is more than four. Gratuity, leave encashment, commutation
amount are excluded for purpose of calculating family income but
monthly pension/family pension, Dearness Relief, Interim Relief
is included for calculation of yearly family income.”
15. The High Court has adverted to the fact that the income limit B
of Rs.1,00,000/- was subsequently revised to Rs.1,50,000/-. We have
been informed during the course of the hearing by Mr. P.S. Patwalia,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State, that this revision
took place on 20 April 2011.
16. The High Court while dealing with the first issue which it C
framed for decision, held that the State is not entitled to take into account
family pension and other terminal benefits in determining whether
compassionate appointment should be granted to the dependant of a
deceased employee.
17. In coming to this conclusion, the High Court has relied upon a D
decision of this Court in Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance
Corporation of India1 and on two subsequent decisions in APSRTC,
Musheerabad Vs. Sarvarunnisa Begum2 and in Canara Bank Vs. M.
Mahesh Kumar3. Having held that the State is not entitled to consider
the family pension and other terminal benefits received by the dependants
of the deceased employee, the High Court has held that the income slab E
which was prescribed by the Finance Department did not constitute an
amendment of the Policy and that, consequently, it must be disregarded
in deciding upon cases of compassionate appointment.
18. Assailing the view which has been taken by the High Court,
Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel urged that the terms of the F
Policy dated 18 January 1990 envisage the grant of employment
assistance to dependants of government servants, where an employee
of the State has died while in service, leaving the family in indigent
circumstances. The submission is that the genesis of compassionate
appointment is that assistance should be rendered to the family of an G
employee who dies in harness in a case where the family is in immediate
need of subsistence and is otherwise left in indigent circumstances.
1
(2005) 10 SCC 289
2
AIR 2008 SCW 198
3
(2015) 7 SCC 412 H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A Learned senior counsel submitted that a consistent line of authority of
this Court establishes the principle that there is no right to compassionate
appointment, but only an entitlement to be considered in accordance
with the prevailing scheme or the rules framed by the employer, where
such a scheme exists. In the present case, it was urged that the Policy,
as subsequently amended, categorically requires that whether the family
B
is in indigent circumstances has to be determined by taking into account
the assets left behind by the deceased, the income from various sources
including pension and the nature of the liabilities including the number of
dependants. Hence, when terms of the Policy require that pensionary
benefits should be accounted for, it was urged that the High Court was
C not justified in issuing a direction to ignore the Policy. At the same time,
it has been submitted that the State does not take into account gratuity,
leave encashment and commutation. However, monthly pension, family
pension, dearness relief and interim relief are taken into consideration.
The rationale for excluding one time payments is that, in the considered
view of the State, these do not enure to the benefit of the family over a
D
period of time. Be that as it may, it has also been urged that the decision
of the Finance Department to prescribe an income ceiling or slab cannot
be faulted. Learned senior counsel submitted that the prescription of an
income slab subserves a fair assessment of individual applications. It
reduces the element of discretion and and obviates a case by case
E analysis of what should or should not be an income criterion for deciding
the indigent circumstances of a family. Finally, it was urged, on the facts
of the present case, that the application which was submitted by the
respondent in 2007 was dealt with by requiring the inclusion of the pension
which the family was receiving in the statement of income. Upon the
letter dated 15 January 2008 of the Additional Secretary, the Writ Petition
F
was filed on 11 May 2015, well over seven years thereafter and nearly
ten years after the death of the deceased employee. Hence, it was
submitted that the ultimate direction issued by the High Court for
consideration of the application is manifestly misconceived. The purpose
of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of a deceased
G employee to tide over an immediate crisis caused by the death of the
employee. Hence, delay of this nature, in any event, should result in the
rejection of the application as well as the Writ Petition.
19. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the
respondent that the issue of delay ought not to come in the way of the
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHASHI KUMAR 447
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
application for compassionate appointment being considered, having A
regard to the fact that Paragraph 8 of the Policy contemplates that where
none of the children of the deceased employee had attained the age of
majority, the time limit for the submission of an application is extended
till the attainment of the age of twenty one years by the eldest child.
Though the respondent was not a minor on the date of the death of the
B
deceased employee, it was urged, by analogy of reasoning, that delay,
by itself, ought not to result in the rejection of the application, particularly
since the upper age of recruitment in the State has been extended to
forty five years. On the aspect of the inclusion of family pension, reliance
was placed on the decision of the High Court, which in turn is based on
certain judgments of this Court. Finally, on the income slab, it has been C
submitted that apart from the considerations which have weighed with
the High Court, it was not open to the Finance Department to amend the
Policy. Moreover, there is no basis for the income limit of Rs.1,00,000/-,
which was prescribed by the Finance Department on 29 September
2008 as enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-. It was urged that as a result of the
D
prescription of an unduly low income limit, the benefit of compassionate
appointment will be denied to families which are indigent and are in need
of employment.
20. While considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to bear
in mind that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general
rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to E
be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution. Dependants of a deceased employee of the State
are made eligible by virtue of the Policy on compassionate appointment.
The basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased
employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the F
untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the immediacy of
the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of
compassionate appointment. Where the authority finds that the financial
and other circumstances of the family are such that in the absence of
immediate assistance, it would be reduced to being indigent, an application
from a dependant member of the family could be considered. The terms G
on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy
which is framed by the State and must fulfill the terms of the Policy. In
that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to
compassionate appointment. But, where there is a policy, a dependant
H
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for
compassionate appointment and to seek consideration of the application
in accordance with the terms and conditions which are prescribed by
the State.
21. The policy in the present case which was formulated on 18
B January 1990 categorically speaks of providing employment assistance
to dependants of government servants who have died while in service,
“leaving their families in indigent circumstances”. The Policy, in other
words, is designed to meet the needs of those families where the death
of a government servant has left them in indigent circumstances, requiring
immediate means of subsistence. The policy recognizes in Paragraph
C 10 that the benefits which are received by a family on account of welfare
measures are required to be considered. Among them, the policy
stipulates that family pension and death gratuity are required to be taken
into account in assessing the financial circumstances of the family. The
Policy does not preclude the dependants of a deceased employee from
D being considered for compassionate appointment merely because they
are in receipt of family pension. What the Policy mandates is that the
receipt of family pension should be taken into account in considering
whether the family has been left in indigent circumstances requiring
immediate means of subsistence. The receipt of family pension is,
therefore, one of the considerations which is to be taken into account.
E Paragraph 10(c) of the Policy sets out the measures provided by the
State which have a bearing on the financial need of the family.
22. In view of the clear terms of the Policy, we are of the view
that the High Court was in error in issuing a mandamus to the Government
to disregard its Policy. Such direction could not have been issued by the
F High Court. The High Court has drawn sustenance in a issuing
mandamus in the above terms from a decision of this Court in Govind
Prakash Verma (supra). That was a case of compassionate appointment
where in the course of the proceedings before the High Court, a learned
Single Judge had directed the Life Insurance Corporation, which was
G the employer of the deceased employee, to make an enquiry and submit
a report on whether the members of the family engaged in gainful
employment were also supporting the family of the deceased employee.
This Court, in an appeal against the judgment of the High Court rejecting
the petition for compassionate appointment, observed that the officer
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHASHI KUMAR 449
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
who had enquired into the matter in pursuance of the order of the learned A
Single Judge completely omitted to furnish any report on the points which
were required by the High Court to be investigated. The High Court
rejected the petition on the ground that the family was in receipt of
family pension and other amounts towards terminal benefits. Reversing
the view of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held thus:
B
“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...” C
23. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma (supra) has been
considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to
those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate
appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal
Vs. State of Haryana4. The principles which have been laid down in D
Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) have been subsequently followed in a
consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are
encapsulated in the following extract:
“2. ...As a rule, appointments in the public services should be
made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and E
merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration
is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities
are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the
qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this
general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there F
are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to
meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of
the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his
family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such
cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into
consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is G
provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a
provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to
one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for
4
(1994) 4 SCC 138 H
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate
employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden
crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post
much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further,
mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family
to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public
B
authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the
family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for
the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet
the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the
family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in
C non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be
offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the
family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the
emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by
making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is
not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such
D
dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational
nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against
destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given
by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered
in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased
E there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more
destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family
of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services
rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change
in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile
employment which are suddenly upturned.”
F
24. Specifically in the context of considering the financial
circumstances of the family of the deceased employee, several judgments
of this Court have elaborated on the principles to be followed.
25. The decision in General Manager (D&PB) Vs. Kunti Tiwary5
G involved an interpretation of an office memorandum dated 7 August
1996 circulated to all banks in the light of the decision in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal (supra). The Indian Banks Association adopted the directions
of this Court in the Scheme which was proposed for the appointment of
heirs of deceased employees. The Scheme contemplated that in order
5
(2004) 7 SCC 271
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHASHI KUMAR 451
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
to determine the financial condition of the family, the following amounts A
would have to be taken into account:
“7...(a) Family pension.
(b) Gratuity amount received.
(c) Employee’s/employer’s contribution to provident fund.
(d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund. B
(e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the
deceased employee.
(f) Income of family from other sources.
(g) Employment of other family members.
(h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc.”
26. Eventually, this recommendation was accepted in the Scheme. C
In the light of these recommendations and the Scheme, this Court
observed that where the family of a deceased employee was not left
without means of livelihood, the claim for compassionate appointment
could not be sustained. It may be noted that in that case it was on a
review of the overall financial position of the family, including amounts D
received towards terminal benefits that the decision was taken.
27. The decision of this Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Ashwani
Kumar Taneja6 followed the same principle. While reiterating the view
which was taken in Kunti Tiwary (supra), this Court held that the Scheme
specified the amounts which were required to be taken into consideration. E
28. The decision in State Bank of India Vs. Somvir Singh7 has
noticed the scheme for appointment of dependants of deceased
employees on compassionate grounds framed by the State Bank of India.
The Court expressly held that the authorities were not in error in taking
account of the terminal benefits, investments and the monthly family F
income including the family pension paid by the Bank. The view of this
Court finds expression in the following extract:
“12. The competent authority while considering the application
had taken into consideration each one of those factors and
accordingly found that the dependants of the employee who died G
in harness are not in penury and without any means of livelihood.
The authority did not commit any error in taking the terminal
benefits and the investments and the monthly family income
including the family pension paid by the Bank into
6
(2004) 7 SCC 265
7
(2007) 4 SCC 778 H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A consideration for the purposes of deciding as to whether the
family of late Zile Singh had been left in penury or without
any means of livelihood. The scheme framed by the appellant
Bank in fact mandates the authority to take those factors into
consideration. The authority also did not commit any error in
taking into consideration the income of the family from other
B
sources viz. the agricultural land.”
(emphasis supplied)
29. In the view of this Court, the only issue to be considered was
whether the claim for compassionate appointment had been considered
C in accordance with the Scheme. The income of the family from all
sources was required to be taken into consideration according to the
Scheme. This having been ignored by the High Court, the appeal filed by
the Bank was allowed.
30. The judgment of a Bench of two-Judges in Mumtaz Yunus
D Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra 8 has adopted the principle that
appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment,
but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden
financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be
evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the Scheme. The
decision in Govind Prakash Verma (supra) has been duly considered,
E but the Court observed that it did not appear that the earlier binding
precedents of this Court have been taken note of in that case.
31. In Union of India Vs. Shashank Goswami 9, this Court
considered a circular issued by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India in terms of which the total income of the family from all
F sources, including terminal benefits received, was required to be taken
into account. Income limits were specified in the circular for Group ‘B’,
Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts. Taking note of the fact that a family
pension has been authorized to the widow of the deceased employee,
this Court held that the case of the dependant did not fall within the
G income limits meant for Group ‘C’ posts.
32. The same principle has been reiterated in another decision of
a Bench of two-Judges of this Court in State Bank of India Vs. Surya
Narain Tripathi10. While adverting to a submission of learned counsel
8
(2008) 11 SCC 384
9
(2012) 11 SCC 307
H 10
(2014) 15 SCC 739
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHASHI KUMAR 453
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
based on the decision in Govind Prakash Verma (supra), this Court noted A
thus:
“8. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Govind Prakash
Verma v. LIC [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC
289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] where a view has been taken that
the compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground B
that another member of the family had received appropriate
employment and the service benefits were adequate. We may
humbly state that this view runs counter to the view which was
taken earlier in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal
v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 :
(1994) 27 ATC 537] which was not cited before the Court in C
Govind Prakash [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10
SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590]. The subsequent two judgments
which were referred above also take the same view as in Umesh
Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana,
(1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994) 27 ATC 537] . D
Mr Vikas Singh has drawn our attention to the judgment in SBI v.
Somvir Singh [SBI v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778 : (2007)
2 SCC (L&S) 92] where the 1998 Scheme has been considered.
9. In all the matters of compassionate appointment it must be
noticed that it is basically a way out for the family which is E
financially in difficulties on account of the death of the breadearner.
It is not an avenue for a regular employment as such. This is in
fact an exception to the provisions under Article 16 of the
Constitution. That being so, if an employer points out that the
financial arrangement made for the family subsequent to the death
of the employee is adequate, the members of the family cannot F
insist that one of them ought to be provided a comparable
appointment. This being the principle which has been adopted all
throughout, it is difficult for us to accept the submission made on
behalf of the respondent.”
33. Now, it is in this background that it would be necessary to G
advert to the decision in Canara Bank (supra). A Scheme for
compassionate appointment of 8 May 1993 was prevalent in Canara
Bank when the employee died on duty in October 1998. Faced with the
H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A rejection of an application for compassionate appointment, the High Court
was moved in a Writ Petition in which a learned Single Judge issued a
direction for reconsideration of the claim for appointment. During the
pendency of the appeal before the Division Bench, the Scheme for
compassionate appointment was replaced by a new Scheme providing
for ex gratia in lieu of appointment. The main issue which fell for
B
consideration before this Court was whether the subsequent Scheme
which was formulated in 2005 providing for ex gratia payment would
govern or whether the application would have to be disposed of on the
basis of the earlier Scheme of 1993. It may be noted that the application
for compassionate appointment in that case had been rejected on the
C ground that the family of the respondent was not in indigent circumstances,
as required by the Scheme for compassionate appointment of 1993.
34. Dealing with the applicability of the subsequent Scheme, a
Bench of two-Judges of this Court held, following the earlier decision in
State Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur11, that the cause of action to be
D considered for compassionate appointment arose when the earlier Scheme
was in force. Hence, the claim could not be decided on the basis of the
subsequent Scheme which provided only for the payment of ex gratia.
Moreover, as a matter of fact, the subsequent scheme was superseded
in 2014 by reviving the Scheme for the provision of compassionate
appointment.
E
35. Hence, the issue which has been dealt with in Canara Bank
(supra) is whether the application for grant of compassionate appointment
could have been rejected on the basis of a scheme which had come into
force after the date of submission of the application. That, as this Court
observed, was the main question which fell for consideration. The Bench
F of two-Judges, however, also noted that it was urged on behalf of the
appellant – Bank that the family of the respondent was in receipt of
family pension. This, the Court held, was of no consequence in
considering the application for compassionate appointment.
36. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
G has sought to distinguish the above observations, in the judgment in Canara
Bank (supra), by submitting that it is not the case of the State of Himachal
Pradesh that mere receipt of family pension would disable an applicant
from submitting an application for compassionate appointment or preclude
consideration of the claim. On the contrary, the submission which is
H 11
(2007) 9 SCC 571
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHASHI KUMAR 455
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
urged is that the Scheme requires consideration of all relevant sources A
of income and hence, receipt of family pension would be one of the
criteria which would be taken into consideration in determining as to
whether the family of the deceased employee is in indigent circumstances.
37. We find merit in this submission, for the simple reason, that it
is in accord with the express terms of the Scheme of 18 January 1990, B
as modified by the State. The Scheme contemplates that payments
which have been received on account of welfare measures provided by
the State including family pension are to be taken into account. Plainly,
the terms of the Scheme must be implemented.
38. For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the C
High Court was not justified, based on the decision in Govind Prakash
Verma (supra) in issuing a direction to the State to act in a manner
contrary to the express terms of the Scheme which require that the
family pension received by the dependants of the deceased employee
be taken into account.
D
39. That leads the Court to the next aspect of the matter relating
to the fixation of an income slab. In our view, the fixation of an income
slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness.
While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be borne in
mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the
purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of decision E
making. The High Court was of the view that it was not open to the
Finance Department to amend the Scheme. The circulars which are
issued by the Finance Department cannot be construed to be an
amendment of the policy. They are really clarificatory of the intent and
purpose of the Scheme. The circulars are explanatory, since they are F
intended to guide the decision maker on the concept of indigency which
is incorporated in the Scheme. In fact, as we have noted earlier, in the
decision of this court in Shashank Goswami(supra), the Court was
specifically dealing with a circular of the Comptroller and Auditor General
of India which had imposed income limits respectively for Group ‘B’,
‘C’ and ‘D’ posts for the purpose of guiding the decision in the case of G
compassionate appointment. The fixation of income limits was not
construed to be and is not an arbitrary exercise of power. However,
what we find from the record of this case is that the income limit was
fixed (as the High Court observed) on 29 September 2008 by the letter
H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A of the Finance Department. The income limit of Rs.1,00,000/- for a
family of four persons has since been revised to Rs.1,50,000/- on
20 April 2011. Mr. P.S. Patwalia has, on instructions, stated before this
Court that this ceiling has been reiterated on 27 July 2017. What should
be the appropriate income criterion is undoubtedly a matter of policy for
the State Government to determine. However, we would impress upon
B
the State Government the need to periodically revise the income limits
preferably at intervals of three years. Inflation and the increase in the
cost of living have an important bearing on financial exigencies faced by
families of serving as well as deceased employees. In fixing the income
criteria for considering cases of compassionate appointment, it would be
C appropriate if the State revisits the income limit at periodic intervals, as
we have indicated above. We clarify that it would be open to the State
to revise the income limits at a frequency of less than three years, if the
State is so advised.
40. Insofar as the individual facts pertaining to the respondent are
D concerned, it has emerged from the record that the Writ Petition before
the High Court was instituted on 11 May 2015. The application for
compassionate appointment was submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15 January
2008 the Additional Secretary had required that the amount realized by
way of pension be included in the income statement of the family. The
respondent waited thereafter for a period in excess of seven years to
E move a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh Kumar
Nagpal (supra), this Court has emphasized that the basis of a scheme of
compassionate appointment lies in the need of providing immediate
assistance to the family of the deceased employee. This sense of
immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of the dependant in
F seeking compassionate appointment.
41. We are not impressed with the submission that delay should
not be taken into account since Paragraph 8 of the Scheme contemplates
that in a situation where all the dependant children of the deceased
employee have yet to attain the age of majority, the time limit for
G submission of an application is extended until the first of the children
attains the age of twenty one years. A case where each of the children
is a minor falls in a different class altogether. This cannot be equated
with a situation where a dependant of a deceased employee who was a
major on the date of death fails to submit an application within a
reasonable period of time from the death of the employee. This aspect
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHASHI KUMAR 457
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
of delay has been dealt with in other decisions of this Court, including A
State of J&K Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir 12 and Local Administration
Department Vs. M. Selvanayagam13.
42. We see no reason or purpose in now directing the State to
reconsider its decision in the case of the respondent which would only
result in another round of fruitless litigation. In our view, the respondent B
is debarred from seeking compassionate appointment by the delay as
well as by the lapse of time which has taken place.
43. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal in the following
terms:
(i) The Writ Petition (CWP No.3652 of 2015) filed by the C
respondent before the High Court shall stand dismissed and the direction
of the High Court for reconsideration of the application for compassionate
appointment shall stand set aside;
(ii) The direction issued by the High Court to the appellants to
desist from taking into account the family pension and other terminal D
benefits is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside;
(iii) While we confirm the decision of the State Government to fix
income limits in order to satisfy the terms of eligibility for compassionate
appointment, we expect that the State Government shall, in compliance
with the Policy, revisit the income limits at intervals of three years or E
earlier and consider whether a revision is warranted having regard to
the cost of living, inflation and other relevant facts and circumstances.
44. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
F
Ankit Gyan Appeal disposed of.
G
12
(2006) 5 SCC 766, para 11
13
(2011) 13 SCC 42, para 11, 12 and 13
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "compassionate appointment"Sign in to search