STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. versus PARKASH CHAND

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 17-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
533
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR.
v.
PARKASH CHAND
(Civil Appeal No. 977 of 2019)
JANUARY 17, 2019
[DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Benefit of –
Death of respondent’s father while in service – Respondent upon
attaining majority applied for compassionate appointment –
Rejection of, on the ground that the elder brother of the respondent
is already employed with the State undertaking – Writ petition by
the respondent seeking setting aside of the rejection letter and his
appointment on compassionate grounds – Issuance of direction by
the High Court to the State to consider cases for appointment on
compassionate basis by sons or daughters of deceased government
employees, even though, one member of the family is engaged in
the service of the government or an autonomous board or
corporation – On appeal, held: Policy as regards compassionate
appointment contained a stipulation that where one or more persons
of the family are already in the employment of the State Government
or of autonomous bodies, Boards, Corporations, etc. of the State or
the Central Government, employment assistance should not be
provided to another member of the family – Limited exception is
available only to a widow of a deceased employee who seeks
compassionate appointment where the widow is not being supported
financially by her employed children – Direction by the High Court
virtually amounts to a mandamus to the State Government to
disregard the terms stipulated in its policy – In the exercise of judicial
review u/Art. 226, it was not open to the High Court to re-write the
terms of the policy – Compassionate appointment is not a matter of
right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays
down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of
the family of a deceased government employee – Issuance of direction
to the State to consider applications which do not fulfill the terms of
the policy, not permissible – Moreso, the writ petition was filed nearly
two years and six months thereafter – Apart from stating that the
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 533
533
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
elder brother of the respondent who was engaged in government
service was living separately, there were no factual averments in
support of the plea – Thus, the directions issued by the High Court
set aside – Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Judicial review.
Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation
of India (2005) 10 SCC 289 – held inapplicable.
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4
SCC 138; General Manager (D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwary
(2004) 7 SCC 271; Punjab National Bank v. Ashwani
Kumar Teneja (2004) 7 SCC 265 : [2004] 3 Suppl.
SCR 597; State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh (2007) 4
SCC 778 : [2007] 2 SCR 509; Mumtaz Yunus Mulani
v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 11 SCC 384 : [2008] 5
SCR 241; Union of India v. Shashank Goswami (2012)
11 SCC 307 : [2012] 6 SCR 98; State Bank of  India v.
Surya  Narain Tripathi (2014) 15 SCC 739; Canara
Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412 : [2015]
9 SCR 724 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2005) 10 SCC 289
held inapplicable
Para 9
(1994) 4 SCC 138
referred to
Para 11
(2004) 7 SCC 271
referred to
Para 11
[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 597
referred to
Para 11
[2007] 2 SCR 509
referred to
Para 11
[2008] 5 SCR 241
referred to
Para 11
[2012] 6 SCR 98
referred to
Para 11
(2014) 15 SCC 739
referred to
Para 11
[2015] 9 SCR 724
referred to
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 977 of
2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.10.2015 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No. 6547 of 2010.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
535
Vikas Mahajan, AAG, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Aakash Verma,
Anil Kumar, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Purnima Krishna,
Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Ajay Marwah, Atul Kumar, Ishan Dewan, Plak
Bagchi, Abhimanyu Sharma, Ishan Dewan, S. K. Verma,  Suryanarayana
Singh, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Ms. Kaveri Vats, Varinder Kumar Sharma,
Ms. Radhika Gautam, Rajul Shrivastav, K. Krishna Kumar, Vikrant
Narayan Vasudeva, Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Iti Sharma, Jay Kr. Bhardwaj,
Ravinder Nain, Puneet Sharma, Jogy Scaria,  Reegan S. Bali, Ms. Beena
Victor, Ravi Homod, Veeranjaneyvilu K.L.N.V., Anil Nag, Ravi Bakshi,
Aditya Dhawan, Ms. Kiran Dhawan, Shashank Kumar, Chander Shekhar
Ashri,  Jayant Mohan, Sunil Kumar Jain, Abhishek Jain, Ms. Anusha
Agarwal, Punya Garg, Abhishek Jain,  Srilok Nath Rath, Y.P. Singh,
Sharan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.