Supreme Court of India
MUNISH KUMAR versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER on 19 May 2020
426
MUNISH KUMAR
A
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 2426 of 2020)
BMAY 19, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Service Law: Appointment – Compassionate appointment –CAppellant’s father was employee of the first respondent – He diedon 16.06.2004 while in service – Though he had applied forretirement on medical grounds prior to the date of death, theapplication was approved only on 17.06.2004, i.e. after theemployee had died (the application was approved w.ef. 8.04.2003– Appellant’s application for compassionate appointment wasDrejected by relying on State’s policy dated 18.01.1990 – Challengeagainst – Held: State’s policy would not have application in theinstant case – On the date of death, the application for retirementon medical grounds was not approved – The approval which wasissued after the death of the employee would therefore not be validEas there could not be any retrospective cessation of service by theacceptance of the application for retirement on medical groundsafter the death of the employee – The case would be covered byclause 2(a) of the policy which deals with a government servantwho dies while in service leaving the family in immediate need ofassistance – Application of appellant for compassionateFappointment ought not to have been rejected – Authorities directedto consider the application of appellant for compassionateappointment.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2426of 2020.GFrom the Judgment and Order dated 06.10.2015 of the High Courtof Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No. 142/2013.
Atul Kumar, S. K. Verma, Advs. for the Appellant.
H
Abhinav Mukerji, Addl. AG, Mohan Lal Sharma, Adv. for theRespondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal relates to a claim for compassionateappointment.
3. The father of the appellant was an employee of the firstrespondent. He died while in service on 16 June 2004. Though he hadapplied for retirement on medical grounds prior to the date of death, it isnot in dispute that the application was approved only on 17 June 2004,after the employee had died (the application was approved with effectfrom 8 April 2003). The application for compassionate appointment hasbeen rejected on the ground that under the policy on compassionateappointment dated 18 January 1990, in the case of a government servant(falling in Class III and IV), who retires on medical grounds under Rule38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, there is an age limit of 53 yearsand 55 years respectively which the employee had crossed.
4. We find merit in the contention of the appellant that the aboveclause of the policy would have no application in the present case. Onthe date of death, the application for retirement on medical grounds hadnot been approved. The approval, which was issued after the death ofthe employee, would therefore not have any valid basis. There could nothave been any retrospective cessation of service by the acceptance ofthe application of retirement on medical grounds after the date of deathof the employee. The case would be covered by clause 2(a) of thepolicy which deals with a government servant, who dies while in serviceleaving the family in immediate need of assistance. We are, therefore,of the view that the application of the appellant ought not to have beenrejected on the ground which has weighed with the authorities.
5. The application of the appellant shall be reconsidered in thelight of the above observations and a final decision shall be communicatedto the appellant within a period of three months from today. In the eventthat no decision is arrived at, we grant liberty to the learned counsel forthe appellant to apply for appropriate directions in the present appeal. Inthe event that compassionate appointment is granted to the appellant, no A
B
C
D
EF
G
H
Aarrears of salary would be payable and he would be entitled to salarywith effect from the date of joining service.
6. A copy of the decision shall be forwarded by the StateGovernment of Himachal Pradesh to the Standing Counsel, who shallcause a copy thereof to be placed on the record of these proceedings.
B
7. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
C
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.
D
E
F
G
H