Compassionate Appointment: Supreme Court Ruling in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shashi Kumar

The case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shashi Kumar revolves around the issue of compassionate appointment under the Himachal Pradesh government’s policy. The respondent, Shashi Kumar, sought a compassionate appointment after his father, who was working in the Horticulture Department at Kullu, passed away in March 2005. The dispute arose when the respondent’s application for compassionate appointment was delayed, with the state contesting the inclusion of family pension in the income assessment, which was necessary to determine eligibility for the appointment. The matter was litigated for several years, eventually reaching the Supreme Court.

The crux of the dispute was whether the receipt of family pension should be considered in the income assessment for compassionate appointment, the delay in applying, and the applicability of the policy at the time of the application. The High Court had directed the state government to reconsider the application, but the state challenged the High Court’s ruling, particularly on the issue of family pension and the delay in filing the application.

Background of the Case

The respondent’s father, a government servant, passed away in 2005 while still in service. His son, Shashi Kumar, applied for a compassionate appointment under the state’s policy on 8th May 2007, over two years after his father’s death. However, the process faced significant delays as the state requested additional documentation, including details of the family’s income, which included family pension. Despite repeated representations, the application was not considered, leading Shashi Kumar to file a writ petition before the High Court in May 2015.

The central issue was whether the family pension and other terminal benefits should be considered in determining whether the family was in indigent circumstances. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the state to reconsider the application for compassionate appointment without taking into account the family pension and terminal benefits. The state, in turn, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Appellant (State of Himachal Pradesh)

The appellant, represented by the State of Himachal Pradesh, contended the following:

• Under the terms of the compassionate appointment policy, family pension and other terminal benefits should be considered while assessing the income of the family for eligibility purposes.
• The High Court’s decision to exclude family pension from the income assessment was erroneous and not in line with the policy guidelines.
• The delay in applying for compassionate appointment should have resulted in the rejection of the application, as the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to families in distress.
• The state’s fixation of income limits and the guidelines laid down in the policy should be followed, and any deviations should be challenged.

Arguments by the Respondent (Shashi Kumar)

The respondent, Shashi Kumar, argued that:

• He should not be penalized for the delay in applying, as he was unaware of the requirement to include family pension in the income statement.
• The policy should not be interpreted so rigidly, as the intent behind compassionate appointment is to provide relief to families in distress, not to impose technicalities that deprive them of relief.
• The inclusion of family pension in the income statement is not justified, as it is a post-retirement benefit meant to support the family, and its inclusion in the income assessment defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment.
• The delay should not bar the consideration of his application, as the policy provides extensions in cases where the deceased employee’s children are not yet of majority.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court reviewed the case and the arguments presented by both parties. The Court acknowledged the purpose of compassionate appointments, which is to provide immediate relief to families in financial distress due to the sudden death of a breadwinner. However, the Court noted that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a right, and it must be governed by the terms of the applicable policy.

The Court observed:

“Compassionate appointments are an exception to the general rule that appointments in public service should be based on merit and through open application processes. However, the applicant must still meet the criteria set out in the applicable policy. Delay in filing the application and inclusion of pension as part of family income are both issues that must be properly assessed in line with the policy’s requirements.”

The Court also referred to previous cases such as Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC, which clarified that compassionate appointments cannot be denied solely on the basis of receiving family pension, but such benefits must be considered when assessing the family’s financial position.

The Court further emphasized:

“The financial status of the family must be assessed comprehensively, taking into account all sources of income, including pensions, terminal benefits, and other assets. Compassionate appointment is a relief measure, not a matter of right, and must be decided in the best interest of the family while ensuring fairness and uniformity.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh and set aside the decision of the High Court. The Court directed the state government to consider the respondent’s application for compassionate appointment, taking into account the family pension and other terminal benefits as part of the income assessment. The Court held:

“The High Court’s order to exclude family pension and other terminal benefits from the income calculation is incorrect. The policy must be followed as written, and the financial status of the family must be assessed based on all relevant sources of income. The respondent’s application should be reconsidered in light of these guidelines.”

The Court also noted that delay in filing the application should be taken into account, but the delay should not automatically disqualify the respondent from being considered for compassionate appointment.

Conclusion

This case highlights the legal nuances surrounding compassionate appointments and the application of state policies for such appointments. It underscores the importance of following policy guidelines while ensuring that the family’s immediate financial needs are considered. The judgment clarifies that family pension and other terminal benefits are to be taken into account when assessing the financial distress of a family, but these benefits alone should not preclude the consideration of compassionate appointment.

Petitioner Name: State of Himachal Pradesh.
Respondent Name: Shashi Kumar.
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 16-01-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Himachal Pr vs Shashi Kumar Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 16-01-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Workplace Harassment
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category