Harinder Kumar vs State of H.P.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.—Petitioner''s father died in harness on 6.2.2010. The petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 20.5.2011 comprised in Annexure P-6. The same was rejected on 30.7.2013 under communication comprised in Annexure P-10 on the ground that the case of the petitioner was not covered under financial/income criteria fixed by the government. It is evident from Annexures P-8 & P-9 that the annual income of the petitioner''s family is Rs. 1,03,264/-. Annexures P-10 & P-11 are not speaking orders. The details given by the petitioner in the application have not been considered by the competent authority. According to the averments contained in the petition, it is clear that the case of the petitioner was rejected, by including pensionary benefits accruing to the family of the deceased while computing the total income of the family of the deceased, whereas, pensionary benefits could not have been included while computing the annual income of the family of the petitioner.

Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others, (2005) 10 SCC 289, while dealing with almost similar situation has held as under:-

.....The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules.....

This Court in Kumari Savita Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and Others, has taken a view that while considering the applications for giving appointment on compassionate grounds, pension received by the family is not to be computed for the purpose of determining the income of the family.

Similar view has been taken by this Court in CWP No. 9965 of 2011, titled as Vikas Kumar vs. State of H.P., decided on 28.8.2012, CWP No. 4852 of 2013, titled as Ashwani Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 29.7.2013 and CWP No. 9637 of 2013, titled as Parvinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 2.1.2014.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-10 and Annexure P-11 are set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in view of the law laid down in the judgments cited herein above, within a period of 8 weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.