1 Leave granted.
2 The present appeal relates to a claim for compassionate appointment.
3 The father of the appellant was an employee of the first respondent. He died
while in service on 16 June 2004. Though he had applied for retirement on medical
grounds prior to the date of death, it is not in dispute that the application was approved
only on 17 June 2004, after the employee had died (the application was approved with
Digitallyeffectsigned by from 8 April 2003). The application for compassionate appointment has been CHETAN KUMAR CA 2426/2020
rejected on the ground that under the policy on compassionate appointment dated 18
January 1990, in the case of a government servant (falling in Class III and IV), who
retires on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, there is an
age limit of 53 years and 55 years respectively which the employee had crossed.
4 We find merit in the contention of the appellant that the above clause of the policy
would have no application in the present case. On the date of death, the application for
retirement on medical grounds had not been approved. The approval, which was
issued after the death of the employee, would therefore not have any valid basis. There
could not have been any retrospective cessation of service by the acceptance of the
application of retirement on medical grounds after the date of death of the employee.
The case would be covered by clause 2(a) of the policy which deals with a government
servant, who dies while in service leaving the family in immediate need of assistance.
We are, therefore, of the view that the application of the appellant ought not to have
been rejected on the ground which has weighed with the authorities.
5 The application of the appellant shall be reconsidered in the light of the above
observations and a final decision shall be communicated to the appellant within a period
of three months from today. In the event that no decision is arrived at, we grant liberty to
the learned counsel for the appellant to apply for appropriate directions in the present
appeal. In the event that compassionate appointment is granted to the appellant, no
arrears of salary would be payable and he would be entitled to salary with effect from
the date of joining service. CA 2426/2020
6 A copy of the decision shall be forwarded by the State Government of Himachal
Pradesh to the Standing Counsel, who shall cause a copy thereof to be placed on the
record of these proceedings.
7 The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
8 Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
[Hemant Gupta]
[Ajay Rastogi]
New Delhi; May 19, 2020 CA 2426/2020
ITEM NO.1 Virtual Court 3 SECTION XIV
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.3502/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-10-2015 in CWP No. 142/2013 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla)
MUNISH KUMAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 19-05-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv.
Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Add. AG
Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
reportable order.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(Chetan Kumar) (Saroj Kumari Gaur)
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)