- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of H.P And Another v. Jafli Devi (Smt) .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent’s husband, Budhi Singh, was employed in the Office of the Director, Fisheries Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh. He died in harness on 12 January 1993. The respondent thereafter sought the compassionate appointment of her son, Harbans Lal. By order dated 31 March 1994, the Director of Fisheries rejected that request on the ground that another son of the deceased employee was already in government service and the governing policy barred a second appointment on compassionate grounds. Although the respondent was informed that her own candidature could be considered, she challenged the rejection before the High Court in CWP No. 446 of 1995. On 16 May 1996, the High Court set aside the rejection order and directed reconsideration of Harbans Lal’s case. The State and its officials appealed; special leave was granted, leading to the present judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under the State of Himachal Pradesh’s Office Memorandum dated 18 January 1990, a second member of a deceased employee’s family can receive compassionate appointment when one family member is already in government service.
- Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Director of Fisheries’ order and directing reconsideration of Harbans Lal’s candidature.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Paragraph 5(c) of the Office Memorandum of 18 January 1990 expressly forbids employment assistance to a second or third family member when one member is already in government or related service.
- The Director of Fisheries therefore correctly rejected the request on 31 March 1994.
- The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by overruling the policy on the basis of sympathy, contrary to the principle in LIC v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| LIC v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718; (1994) 27 ATC 174 | Courts cannot, on sympathetic grounds, order compassionate appointment contrary to governing rules or policies. | Reinforced that the High Court could not direct compassionate appointment in violation of the State’s 1990 policy. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court scrutinised clause 5(c) of the 18 January 1990 Office Memorandum, which bars compassionate appointment to any additional family member where one is already employed in government service. The sole exception—consideration of the widow under specific conditions—had no application here. Citing LIC v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, the Court emphasised that directions for appointment must conform strictly to the governing policy and cannot rest solely on sympathy. Accordingly, the Director’s rejection of Harbans Lal’s application complied with the established policy, and the High Court erred in overturning it.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; the High Court’s judgment dated 16 May 1996 is set aside and the respondent’s writ petition is dismissed.
Implications: The ruling upholds the State’s 1990 policy limiting compassionate appointments to a single family member, underscoring that courts cannot deviate from such policies on sympathetic grounds. The decision affects only the parties to the present case and does not establish new precedent.
Order
1. Special leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of a writ petition (CWP No. 446 of 1995) filed by the respondent in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In the said writ petition the case of the respondent was that her husband Budhi Singh was employed in the Office of Director, Fisheries Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, and that he had died in harness on 12-1-1993. The respondent had applied for appointment of her son Harbans Lal on compassionate grounds. The said application of the respondent was rejected by order dated 31-3-1994 passed by the Director of Fisheries on the ground that one of the sons of the deceased employee was already in government service and another son could not be given appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent has however, told that if she was herself interested in government service the department could consider her request. By the impugned judgment dated 16-5-1996 the High Court has allowed the said writ petition of the respondent and has set aside the order dated 31-3-1994 passed by the Director of Fisheries and has directed the appellants to reconsider the case of Harbans Lal, the son of the respondent, for appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has invited our attention to the Office Memorandum dated 18-1-1990 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel [AP-II] on the subject of appointment of sons/daughters/near relations of a government servant who dies in harness, leaving his family in immediate need of assistance. In para 5(c) of the said Office Memorandum relating to eligibility for such appointment, it has been stated:
“5. (c) Eligibility.—In all cases where one or more members of the family are already in government service or in employment of Autonomous Bodies/Boards/Corporations etc., of the State/Central Government, employment assistance should not under any circumstances be provided to the second or third member of the family. In cases, however, where the widow of the deceased government servant represents or claims that her employed sons/daughters are not supporting her, the request of employment assistance should be considered only in respect of the widow. Even for allowing compassionate appointment to the widow in such cases the opinion of the Department of Personnel and Finance Department should specifically be sought and the matter finally decided by the Council of Ministers.”
4. The submission of the learned counsel is that in view of the said condition laid down in the policy framed by the State Government regarding giving appointment on compassionate grounds, Harbans Lal, the second son of the respondent, could not be given appointment in view of the fact that another son of the respondent was already in government service. It is urged that the High Court was in error in quashing the order dated 31-3-1994 passed by the Director of Fisheries, which was in consonance with the aforesaid policy contained in the Office Memorandum and in directing that the case of Harbans Lal for appointment on compassionate grounds be reconsidered. We find considerable force in this submission. In LIC v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718, (1994) 27 ATC 174 this Court has laid down that the High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration and the Court should ensure to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. In that case it was held that direction for appointment on compassionate grounds could not be given dehors the provisions or statutory regulations or instructions governing such appointments.
5. In the present case the High Court appears to have been influenced by sympathetic considerations and hardship of the respondent to make a departure from the policy laid down by the Government in the Office Memorandum dated 18-1-1990. Under the said policy Harbans Lal, the second son of the respondent could not be given appointment on compassionate grounds since another son of the deceased employee was already in government service. Having regard to the said policy the application of the respondent seeking appointment for Harbans Lal had been rightly rejected by the Director of Fisheries by his order dated 31-3-1994. The High Court was in error in setting aside the said order passed by the Director of Fisheries and directing the appellants to reconsider the case of Harbans Lal for appointment on compassionate grounds.
6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Alert