LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/munish-kumar-vs-state-of-himachal-pradesh-and-another-20200519/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Munish Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
19 May 2020
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 2426 of 2020
Result
Allowed
Bench
D.Y. Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi, Hemant Gupta
Citation
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 426 : 2020 INSC 398
Supreme Court Reports [2020] 5 S.C.R. 426 : 2020 INSC 398
Headnote

Service Law: Appointment – Compassionate appointment – Appellant’s father was employee of the first respondent – He died on 16.06.2004 while in service – Though he had applied for retirement on medical grounds prior to the date of death, the application was approved only on 17.06.2004, i.e. after the employee had died (the application was approved w.ef. 8.04.2003 – Appellant’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected by relying on State’s policy dated 18.01.1990 – Challenge against – Held: State’s policy would not have application in the instant case – On the date of death, the application for retirement on medical grounds was not approved – The approval which was issued after the death of the employee would therefore not be valid as there could not be any retrospective cessation of service by the acceptance of the application for retirement on medical grounds after the death of the employee – The case would be covered by clause 2(a) of the policy which deals with a government servant who dies while in service leaving the family in immediate need of assistance – Application of appellant for compassionate appointment ought not to have been rejected – Authorities directed to consider the application of appellant for compassionate appointment.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The following Order of the Court was passed: ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal relates to a claim for compassionate appointment. 3. The father of the appellant was an employee of the first respondent. He died while in service on 16 June 2004. Though he had applied for retirement on medical grounds prior to the date of death, it is not in dispute that the application was approved only on 17 June 2004, after the employee had died (the application was approved with effect from 8 April 2003). The application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that under t
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →