Kuldeep Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner''s father was regularized as Beldar in the year 1998. He died on 24.5.2006. Petitioner submitted an application to the concerned Department for employment on compassionate ground. Appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Government. He was ordered to be appointed on contract basis as Clerk in I.P.H. Division, Dalhousie. However, fact of the matter is that appointment of the petitioner was kept in abeyance on the ground that his family''s income exceeded the limit of Rs. 75,000/- per annum. The income of the petitioner as per material placed on record was assessed at Rs. 1,09,000/- per annum. Respondents have not taken into consideration that the income criteria has been increased from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,25,000/- per annum. The respondents while computing the income of petitioner''s family have taken into consideration the retiral/pensionary benefits.

Ms. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the competent authority by including pensionary benefits while computing the annual income of the family of the petitioner.

It is settled law by now that while computing the income of family for the purpose of compassionate appointment, the pensionary/retiral benefits should not be taken into consideration.

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

"6.......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. and others, decided on 29.7.2013 and CWP No. 9637 of 2013, titled as Parvinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 2.1.2014.

Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-5 dated 9.5.2013 is set aside. Respondents are directed to execute Annexure P-3 by appointing the petitioner on contract basis as Clerk in I.P.H. Division, Dalhousie, within a period of 10 weeks from today by ignoring family pension/retiral benefits. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.