Himachal Pradesh High Court
Narinder Singh vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 1 March, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
( 2025:HHC:4382 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No. 6642/2023
Decided on: 01.03.2025
Narinder Singh …Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ….Respondents.
……………………………………………………………………………….
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes,
For the petitioner: Mr. P.D. Nanda, Advocate.
For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy
Advocate General, for respondent
No.1.
Mr. V.S. Kanwar, Advocate, for,
respondents No.2 & 3.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J
The respondents have rejected the compassionate
employment case of the petitioner, hence the writ petition.
2. Facts
2(i) Petitioner’s father Sh. Surinder Kumar was in regular
service of the respondent-Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Limited.
He died in harness on 16.09.2011 while serving as Sub-Station
Attendant in the trade of Electrician.
2(ii) Petitioner applied for employment assistance against
the post of Clerk on compassionate grounds on 19.02.2013
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
( 2025:HHC:4382 )
(Annexure P-3). Respondents through their communication dated
17.05.2013 (Annexure P-4) rejected the case with the observations
that (i) Petitioner being matriculate did not fulfill the eligibility criteria
for the post of Clerk applied for by him and (ii) Certificate of income
produced by the petitioner showed his annual family income of
Rs.1,44,000/-, which exceeded the annual ceiling limit of Rs.75,000/-
fixed under the applicable rules/instructions for providing employment
under the Employment Assistance Scheme. Copy of the
communication was also addressed to the petitioner.
2(iii) Petitioner once again sought employment, now under
the Employment Assistance Scheme 2019 vide his application dated
17.09.2020. This application was eventually rejected by the
respondents. The reason for rejection as supplied to the petitioner
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 16.11.2022 (Annexure
P-11) is that he was not a bonafide Himachali and therefore not
eligible under the provisions/instructions of recruitment for Class III
and IV post in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner feeling
aggrieved against rejection of his case by the respondents on the
ground of his being not a bonafide Himachali, has instituted this writ
petition seeking following substantive relief:-
“That the impugned order conveyed to the petitioner under Right
to Information Act on 19.11.2022, Annexure P-11 rejecting the
case of the petitioner on the sole ground that he is not bonafide
Himachali may be quashed and set aside and the respondents
3
( 2025:HHC:4382 )may be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate
ground from the date his counterpart/juniors were appointed with
all consequential benefits.”
3. Submissions
3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
reason given by the respondents for rejecting petitioner’s case
seeking employment on compassionate ground has already been
held untenable & rejected in Sandeep Kaur Vs. State of H.P. &
Ors.2 Following paras from the decision were pressed into service:-
“19) As regards the contention of the respondents that the
petitioner should provide a certificate of Bonafide Resident of
Himachal Pradesh is concerned, the petitioner has contended that
though initially Himachal Pradesh, Manipur and Tripura Public
Employment (Requirement As To Residence) Rules, 1954 were in
force in the State of Himachal Pradesh which required production
of such certificates, these Rules were deleted by the State
Government after 20.04.1974.
20) It is further contended that insistence on such a
certificate would violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India
and even the main clauses of the policy dt. 07.03.2019 being
relied on by the respondent do not require such a Bonafide
Himachali Certificate.
21) We agree with both these contentions raised by the
petitioner’s Counsel. As per Art.16(2) of the Constitution no citizen
can be discriminated on basis of residence. So insisting that
petitioner produces such a certificate when it is undisputed that
she is an Indian citizen and daughter of the deceased employee of
the 2nd respondent cannot be countenanced.
22) For all these aforesaid reasons, this Writ petition is
allowed; the action of the respondents in refusing to give the
petitioner compassionate appointment in the 2nd respondent-
Corporation vide letter dt. 07.06.2023 (Annexure P-5) is set aside;
2
CWP No. 4304/2023 decided on 26.0.2023
4
( 2025:HHC:4382 )
the respondents are directed to accept the Character Certificate
issued to the petitioner by the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Distt. Rupnagar, Punjab, though it is not issued by the Executive
Magistrate or Tehsildar; the requirement of furnishing a Bonafide
Himachali Certificate contained in Office Memorandum dt.
07.03.2019 for purpose of providing employment on
compassionate grounds is set aside as being violative of Article
16(2) of the Constitution of India; and the respondents no. 2 & 3
are directed to provide such compassionate appointment to the
petitioner within four weeks.”
Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner’s first
application dated 19.02.2013 seeking employment assistance had
not been rejected by the respondents. Respondents’ only objection
to the case was that the petitioner was not qualified for being
appointed on the post of Clerk, he being a matriculate at that time.
Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner thereafter in the
year 2014 had furnished his 10+2 certificate to the respondents.
However, the respondents did not take any decision upon petitioner’s
application. Petitioner once again applied on 17.09.2020 and
thereafter also in response to a general office communication of the
respondents dated 06.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) for employment on
compassionate grounds against Class-IV post. Respondents have
favourably considered the cases of several persons, however, the
case of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected only on the ground
of his being not a bonafide Himachali.
5
( 2025:HHC:4382 )
3(ii) Learned counsel for the respondent-HPSEBL
highlighted the facts pleaded in the reply and submitted that
petitioner’s case had been turned down on 17.05.2013 not only in
view of his being unqualified for the post of Clerk applied for by him
but also his family income being in excess of the annual ceiling limit
prescribed for compassionate employment at the relevant time.
Though the petitioner was advised to apply for employment
assistance for Class-IV post, but the petitioner never applied for the
same. It was only on 17.09.2020 that the petitioner applied for the
second time seeking employment on compassionate grounds. By
that time, case of the petitioner had already become time barred in
terms of three years period laid down under the applicable policy.
The petitioner has not even challenged the decision taken by the
respondents in its office communication dated 17.05.2013.
4. Consideration
4(i) It would be appropriate to first take note of a recent
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Canara Bank Vs. Ajithkumar
G.K.3 wherein after referring to several authoritative
pronouncements, the principles relating to compassionate
employment have been culled out as under:-
“11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on
compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to
consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized3
Civil Appeal No. 255/2025 decided on 11.02.2025
6
( 2025:HHC:4382 )through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential
but contextual order):
a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered
on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of
equality in the matter of public employment [see General
Manager, State Bank of India v Anju Jain4].
b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the
absence of rules or instructions [see Haryana State
Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi5].
c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in
two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general
rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family
either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the
breadwinner while in service [see V. Sivamurthy v. Union of
India]6.
d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment
by an employer being intended to enable the family
members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to
tide over the sudden financial crisis, appointments on
compassionate ground should be made immediately to
redeem the family in distress [see Sushma Gosain v. Union
of India7].
e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit
a sidedoor entry, the same have to be given strict
interpretation [see Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi
Devi8].
f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a
right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied
by all aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das9].
4
(2008) 8 SCC 475
5
(2002) 10 SCC 246
6
(2008) 13 SCC 730
7
(1989) 4 SCC 468
8
(2009) 11 SCC 453
9
(2008) 15 SCC 560
7
( 2025:HHC:4382 )
g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of
inheritance [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar
Sengar10].
h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our
constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme
has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose
it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union
of India11].
i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the
occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the concerned
employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a
vested right, and any appointment without considering the
financial condition of the family of the deceased is legally
impermissible [see Union of India v. Amrita Sinha12].
j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be
made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any
case within a reasonable period thereof or else a
presumption could be drawn that the family of the
deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need
of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested
right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in
future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time
and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v.
Anil Badyakar13].
k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a
member of a family of the deceased employee a post much
less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering
compassionate employment as a matter of course
irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the
deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts
above Class III and IV is legally impermissible [see Umesh
Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana14].
10
(2009) 13 SCC 600
11
(2011) 4 SCC 209
12
(2021) 20 SCC 695
13
(2009) 13 SCC 112
14
(1994) 4 SCC 138
8
( 2025:HHC:4382 )
l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased
employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the
scheme of compassionate appointment. If the element of
indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for
relief from financial destitution is taken away from
compassionate appointment, it would turn out to be a
reservation in favour of the dependents of the employee who
died while in service which would directly be in conflict with
the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution [see Union of India v. B. Kishore15].
m) The idea of compassionate appointment is not to
provide for endless compassion [see I.G. (Karmik) v.
Prahalad Mani Tripathi16].
n) Satisfaction that the family members have been
facing financial distress and that an appointment on
compassionate ground may assist them to tide over such
distress is not enough; the dependent must fulfil the eligibility
criteria for such appointment [see State of Gujarat v.
Arvindkumar T. Tiwari17].
o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such
time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of
years, unless there are some specific provisions [see Sanjay
Kumar v. State of Bihar18].
p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal
benefits cannot be treated as substitute for providing
employment assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that
too if provided by the scheme for compassionate
appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent who was a
minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be considered
for appointment upon attaining majority [see Canara Bank3].
q) An appointment on compassionate ground made
many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or
without due consideration of the financial resources available15
(2011) 13 SCC 131
16
(2007) 6 SCC 162
17
(2012) 9 SCC 545
18
(2000) 7 SCC 192
9
( 2025:HHC:4382 )to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee
would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution [see National Institute of Technology v. Niraj
Kumar Singh19].
r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be
considered [see Haryana Public Service Commission v.
Harinder Singh20].
s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the
deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to
determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury. The
court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of “not very
well-to-do”. [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti
Tiwary21].
t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased
employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be
evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand
defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every
dependent of an employee dying-inharness would claim
employment as if public employment is heritable [see Union
of India v. Shashank Goswami, 22 Union Bank of India v.
M. T. Latheesh23 , National Hydroelectric Power
Corporation v. Nank Chand 24 and Punjab National Bank
v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja25].
u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income
including the family pension and income of family from other
sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into
consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is
living in penury. [see State Bank of India Vs. Somvir
Singh26].
v) The benefits received by widow of deceased
employee under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly
19
(2007) 2 SCC 481
20
(1998) 5 SCC 452
21
(2004) 7 SCC 271
22
(2012) 11 SCC 307
23
(2006) 7 SCC 350
24
(2004) 12 SCC 487
25
(2004) 7 SCC 265
26
(2007) 4 SCC 778
10
( 2025:HHC:4382 )
payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate
appointment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with
benefits of compassionate appointment. [see Balbir Kaur v.
SAIL27]
w) 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. [see State of H.P. v. Shashi
Kumar28].
x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic
consideration [see Life Insurance Corporation of India v.
Asha Ramchandra Ambekar29].
y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors
the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the
candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such
regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur30].
z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an
appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy
[see Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra
Sharma31].
It would be of some relevance to mention here that all the
decisions referred to above are by coordinate benches of
two Judges.”
4(ii) Having heard learned counsel on both sides and
considered the case file, I am not inclined to accept this writ petition.
This is for the following reasons:-
4(ii)(a) Petitioner had admittedly applied for compassionate
employment assistance on 19.02.2013. This application was within
27
(2000) 6 SCC 493
28
(2019) 3 SCC 653
29
(1994) 2 SCC 718
30
(2007) 9 SCC 571
31
(2007) 8 SCC 148
11
( 2025:HHC:4382 )prescribed limitation as his father had died on 16.09.2011, however,
communication dated 17.05.2013 (Annexure P-4) clearly makes out
that the respondents had actually rejected the case of the petitioner.
Rejection was not only on the ground of petitioner being unqualified
for the post of Clerk applied for by him but it was also on account of
annual income of petitioner’s family being in excess of then
prescribed maximum ceiling limit. Petitioner accepted the decision of
the respondents at the relevant time. It is not his case that he
agitated the aforesaid decision at any point of time thereafter. Merely
supplying 10+2 certificate a year later, whether for Class IV or Class
III post, would not take away the second ground of rejection taken by
the respondents in their office communication dated 17.05.2013
about petitioner’s annual family income being in excess of the fixed
ceiling limit. This aspect has not been disputed by learned counsel
for the petitioner. That being the position, turning down the case of
the petitioner by the respondents in its communication dated
17.05.2013 practically amounts to rejection of his case. This reason
admittedly held its ground.
4(ii)(b) Petitioner‘s case having been rejected once, his
subsequent applications on 17.09.2020 and thereafter in the year
2022 are of no relevance. Petitioner’s case stood rejected in the year
2013. Though, reasons assigned by the respondents for rejecting
petitioner’s second/third applications in their impugned office
12
( 2025:HHC:4382 )
communication dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P-11) are not tenable in
view of law laid down in Sandeep Kaur’s2, case, however, this cannot
advance the case of the petitioner for employment on
compassionate grounds considering the fact that his application
stood already rejected on 17.05.2013 for a different & valid reason.
Petitioner had accepted the aforesaid decision. It is not his case that
he laid any challenge to respondents’ decision dated 17.05.2013 at
the appropriate time. There is no challenge to this decision even in
this writ petition.
4(ii)(c) Hon’ble Apex Court in Canara Bank Vs. Ajithkumar
G.K.3 also held that lapse of time could, be a major factor for denying
compassionate appointment where the claim is lodged belatedly. A
presumption is legitimately drawn in cases of claims lodged belatedly
that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in
immediate need of financial assistance. The idea of compassionate
appointment is not to provide for endless compassion.
4(ii)(d) In the instance case, as already noticed, petitioner’s
father died on 16.09.2011. Petitioner applied for compassionate
appointment on 19.02.2013 and his case was rejected by the
respondents on 17.05.2013 on the ground of his being unqualified
for the post of Clerk applied for by him as also on the ground of his
annual family income being in excess of the maximum ceiling limit
prescribed at the relevant time. Petitioner accepted the aforesaid
13
( 2025:HHC:4382 )
decision of the respondents. Even as per submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no dispute about
petitioner’s annual family income being in excess of the prescribed
maximum ceiling limit. Hence the respondents had justly rejected the
case of the petitioner in the year 2013. Petitioner’s subsequent
application in the year 2020 and/or thereafter in the year 2022 and
the decision thereupon by the respondents are inconsequential.
Respondents have also contended that petitioner’s subsequent
applications were barred by limitation. Petitioner’s case for
employment assistance had been rejected by the respondents at the
threshold on 17.05.2013 on the grounds, which were accepted by
the petitioner and not tested/assailed by him. Respondents’ rejecting
petitioner’s subsequent applications on 16.11.2022 on different
ground is an empty & meaningless formality. This rejection being
inconsequential will not advance petitioner’s case for employment on
compassionate ground.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the
present petition and the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
01st March, 2025,(rohit)
[ad_1]
Source link