CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Rajit Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 27 August 2014 · Citation: (2014) 08 SHI CK 0097

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sureshwar Thakur, J · Rajiv Sharma, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 5680/2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 367 words

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner''s father died in harness on 4.9.2011. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his case for providing appointment on compassionate grounds. Case of the petitioner has been rejected on 16.11.2013 on the ground that the petitioner does not meet the financial/income criteria.

2.

Mr. Onkar Jairath submits that respondent-State has taken into consideration the retiral and pensionary benefits paid to the family while computing annual income. This Court has taken a consistent view that retiral and pensionary benefits paid to the family are not to be taken into consideration while computing annual income for the purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds.

3.

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......."

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in view of the law laid down in the judgments cited hereinabove, 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.