State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Shashi Kumar

The facts, insofar as they are material to this appeal, are thus:

(iii) If an applicant was in lis and his case was directed to be reconsidered, whether the claim of such applicant is to be determined as per the policy which was existing at the time of passing the order or as per the policy which was in place at the time of staking claim for the first time or as per the policy existing at the time of con- sideration?

In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy, it would be necessary to advert to the genesis of the policy of the State Government.

“12. The competent authority while considering the application had taken into consideration each one of those factors and accordingly found that the dependants of the employee who died in harness are not in penury and without any means of livelihood. The authority did not commit any error in taking the terminal benefits and the investments and the monthly family income including the family pension paid by the Bank into consideration for the purposes of deciding as to whether the family of late Zile Singh had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. The scheme framed by the appellant Bank in fact mandates the authority to take those factors into consideration. The authority also did not commit any error in taking into consideration the income of the family from other sources viz. the agricultural land.” (emphasis supplied) In the view of this Court, the only issue to be considered was whether the claim for compassionate appointment had been considered in accordance with the Scheme. The income of the family from all sources was required to be taken into consideration according to the Scheme. This having been ignored by the High Court, the appeal filed by the Bank was allowed.

We find merit in this submission, for the simple reason, that it is in accord with the express terms of the Scheme of 18 January 1990, as modified by the State. The Scheme contemplates that payments which have been received on account of welfare measures provided by the State including family pension are to be taken into account. Plainly, the terms of the Scheme must be implemented.

We see no reason or purpose in now directing the State to reconsider its decision in the case of the respondent which would only result in another round of fruitless litigation. In our view, the respondent is debarred from seeking compassionate appointment by the delay as well as by the lapse of time which has taken place.

(i) The Writ Petition (CWP No.3652 of 2015) filed by the respondent before the High Court shall stand dismissed and the direction of the High Court for reconsideration of the application for compassionate appointment shall stand set aside;

(ii) The direction issued by the High Court to the appellants to desist from taking into account the family pension and other terminal benefits is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside;

(iii) While we confirm the decision of the State Government to fix income limits in order to satisfy the terms of eligibility for compassionate appointment, we expect that the State Government shall, in compliance with the Policy, revisit the income limits at intervals of three years or earlier and consider whether a revision is warranted having regard to the cost of living, inflation and other relevant facts and circumstances.

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.