Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh which had directed consideration of the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment. The respondent's father, a government servant, died on 29 March 2005. The respondent applied for compassionate appointment on 8 May 2007. The application was forwarded but the authorities sought an income certificate including pension. The respondent did not pursue the matter and filed a writ petition on 11 May 2015, over seven years later. The High Court consolidated several cases and framed nine issues. The Supreme Court confined its judgment to two issues: whether family pension can be included in family income, and whether delay is fatal. The Court held that the policy of 18 January 1990 requires assessment of indigent circumstances, and family pension is a relevant factor. The policy does not exclude pension from consideration. The Court also held that the respondent's claim was delayed by over seven years without satisfactory explanation, and the policy requires applications within three years. The Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Inclusion of Family Pension in Income - The State Government's policy for compassionate appointment requires assessment of indigent circumstances of the family. Family pension and other retiral benefits received by the family can be included in the family income while determining eligibility for compassionate appointment. The policy does not prohibit consideration of such benefits. (Paras 10-15) B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay in Claim - A claim for compassionate appointment must be made within a reasonable time. The policy stipulates a three-year limit from the date of death. Delay of over seven years in filing writ petition without satisfactory explanation disentitles the claimant to relief. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether family pension and other retiral benefits can be included in family income for denying compassionate appointment, and whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained after a considerable delay.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a right
- indigent circumstances must be assessed
- family pension can be included in income
- delay in claiming compassionate appointment can be fatal
