Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 13 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.7790 of 2021
Decided on: 13th May, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gurpreet Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate vice
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate
General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Allowed and disposed of.
Petitioner's father-Sh. Dharam Pal was serving
as Head Constable in the respondent-Police Department.
He died in harness on 09.02.2017. Petitioner applied for
compassionate employment on 06.10.2017. Respondents
rejected petitioner's case for providing him employment on
compassionate grounds on 04.06.2021. The reason for
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
rejecting petitioner's case was that:- Petitioner's family
income was Rs.5 Lakhs per annum on 05.04.2018 (family
pension Rs.3,18,752 + income from other sources
Rs.1,81,248/-); There were 05 members in petitioner's
family; Petitioner does not meet the financial/income
criteria fixed by the State of Himachal Pradesh on
07.03.2019; Under government instructions dated
07.03.2019, maximum ceiling of total family income to
assess the indigency has been fixed as Rs.2,50,000/-
presuming a family of 04 persons. Even if number of family
members exceeds 04, the family size will still be presumed
as 04. If the family members are less than 04, then, income
of family would be calculated by multiplying Rs.62,500/- by
the number of family members. Petitioner's annual family
income being Rs.5 Lakhs as on 05.04.2018, he did not
satisfy the ceiling limit for family income set under the
government instructions dated 07.03.2019.
2. Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid decision of
the respondents.
3. In State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Versus Ashish Awasthi2, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased
(2022) 2 SCC 157
employee only is required to be considered and not the
subsequent policy. Relevant paras from the decision read as
under:-
"4. The deceased employee died on 8-10-2015. At the time of
death, he was working as a work-charged employee, who
was paid the salary from the contingency fund. As per the
policy/circular prevalent at the time of the death of the
deceased employee i.e. Policy/Circular No.C-3- 12/2013/
1-3 dated 29-9-2014 in case of death of the employee
working on work charge, his dependents/heirs were not
entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and
were entitled to Rs.2 lakhs as compensatory amount.
Subsequently, the policy came to be amended vide circular
dated 31-08-2016, under which even in the case of death
of the work charge employee, his heirs/dependents will be
entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground.
Relying upon the subsequent Circular/Policy dated
31-08-2016, the Division Bench of the High Court has
directed the appellants to consider the case of the
respondent for appointment on compassionate ground.
5. As per the settled preposition of law laid down by this
Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy
prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee
only is required to be considered and not the subsequent
policy.
6. In Indian Bank v. Promila3, it is observed and held that
claim for compassionate appointment must be decided
only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of
demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be
looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in
State of M.P. v. Amrit Shrivas4. It is required to be noted
that in Amit Shrivas5 the very scheme applicable in the
present case was under consideration and it was held
that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the
deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view
of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
7. The submission on behalf of the respondent that after the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,
the respondent has been appointed and therefore his
(2020) 2 SCC 729
(2020) 10 SCC 496
appointment may not be disturbed, deserves rejection.
Once the judgment and order passed by the Division
bench under which respondent is appointed is quashed
and set aside, necessary consequences shall follow and
the appointment of the respondent, which was pursuant to
the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court cannot be protected.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh Bench at Jabalpur in WA No.1559 of
2018 is hereby quashed and set aside by observing that
the respondent shall not be entitled for appointment on
compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent
circular/policy dated 31-8-2016."
Admittedly, father of the petitioner had died on
09.02.2017. Petitioner had applied for compassionate
employment on 06.10.2017. His case, therefore, could not
have been considered by the respondents under
government instructions dated 07.03.2019, which came
into force subsequently. For that reason alone, this writ
petition is allowed. The decision taken by the respondents
under office communication dated 04.06.2021 (Annexure
P-6) qua the petitioner (Sr. No.13) is quashed and set aside.
Respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioner afresh in accordance with law and as per the
policy in vogue at the relevant time. This exercise be carried
out within six weeks from today.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
May 13, 2025 Judge
Mukesh
