State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. vs Parkash Chand

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

17 January 2019

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 977 of 2019

Result

Allowed

Bench

D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta

Citation

[2019] 1 S.C.R. 533 : 2019 INSC 55

Headnote

Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Benefit of – Death of respondent’s father while in service – Respondent upon attaining majority applied for compassionate appointment – Rejection of, on the ground that the elder brother of the respondent is already employed with the State undertaking – Writ petition by the respondent seeking setting aside of the rejection letter and his appointment on compassionate grounds – Issuance of direction by the High Court to the State to consider cases for appointment on compassionate basis by sons or daughters of deceased government employees, even though, one member of the family is engaged in the service of the government or an autonomous board or corporation – On appeal, held: Policy as regards compassionate appointment contained a stipulation that where one or more persons of the family are already in the employment of the State Government or of autonomous bodies, Boards, Corporations, etc. of the State or the Central Government, employment assistance should not be provided to another member of the family – Limited exception is available only to a widow of a deceased employee who seeks compassionate appointment where the widow is not being supported financially by her employed children – Direction by the High Court virtually amounts to a mandamus to the State Government to disregard the terms stipulated in its policy – In the exercise of judicial review u/Art. 226, it was not open to the High Court to re-write the terms of the policy – Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee – Issuance of direction to the State to consider applications which do not fulfill the terms of the policy, not permissible – Moreso, the writ petition was filed nearly two years and six months thereafter – Apart from stating that the elder brother of the respondent who was engaged in government service was living separately, there were no factual averments in support of the plea – Thus, the directions issued by the High Court set aside – Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Judicial review. Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (2005) 10 SCC 289 – held inapplicable.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Divison Bench of the High Court dated 6 October 2015. 3. The father of the respondent who was working as a Peon in the Revenue Department of the State, died on 4 January 1997, while in service. On the date of the death of his father, the respondent was a minor. He attained the age of majority on 17 November 2002. The policy of compassionate appointment framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, inter alia, contains a stipulation that where none of the childr

View Subscription Plans →