Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The respondent, Parkash Chand, sought compassionate appointment as a Peon after his father, a government employee, died in service on 4 January 1997. At the time of death, the respondent was a minor; he attained majority on 17 November 2002. The State's compassionate appointment policy dated 18 January 1990, under paragraph 8, allowed a minor child to apply upon attaining the age of 21. The respondent applied but his application was rejected on 25 April 2008 on the ground that his brother was already employed with the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board, a State undertaking. The respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that his brother lived separately and did not support the family, relying on a ration card and a panchayat certificate. The High Court, relying on Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, held that the mere fact of another family member being employed should not bar compassionate appointment if that member lives separately. The High Court directed the State to consider the respondent's application. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction effectively rewrote the policy, which clearly barred compassionate appointment when another family member is already in government or autonomous body employment, except for a widow if her employed children do not support her. The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and must be governed by the policy terms. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by issuing a mandamus to disregard the policy. Additionally, the writ petition was filed nearly two and a half years after rejection, and there were no sufficient factual averments to support the claim of separate living. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and rejected the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Policy Interpretation - Paragraph 5(c) of State Policy dated 18.01.1990 - Compassionate appointment cannot be granted if one or more family members are already in government or autonomous body employment, except for widow if employed children not supporting her - High Court's direction to consider application despite policy bar was impermissible as it rewrote policy terms (Paras 3-5). B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Scope of High Court's power - High Court cannot re-write terms of executive policy on compassionate appointment - Policy must be strictly followed; court cannot issue mandamus to disregard policy conditions (Paras 4-5). C) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Right - Not a vested right - Compassionate appointment is governed by policy in force; no automatic entitlement - State's rejection based on policy valid (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could direct the State to consider compassionate appointment for a son despite the policy barring appointment when another family member is already in government service, and whether the High Court could re-write the terms of the policy.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The directions issued by the High Court in its impugned judgment and order are set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent stands rejected. No costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right
- must be governed by policy terms
- High Court cannot re-write policy terms under Article 226
- exception for widow only if employed children not supporting her
