21 November 2022


High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Moti Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Limited and Ors.




Where one or more members of the family are already in Government Service, employment assistance should not be provided to the second or third member of the family

Petitioner had filed original application before present Court. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that, the father of the Petitioner was working as a T-Mate with the Respondent-Department and had died while in service, on 3rd March, 2007. Petitioner by approaching the Respondents had sought appointment on compassionate basis. However, the case of the Petitioner has been wrongly rejected on the ground that since the mother of the Petitioner was already serving in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, therefore, he was not entitled for appointment on compassionate basis.

Respondents have placed on record policy framed by them dated 18th January, 1990, for appointment of sons/daughters/near relations of a Government servant who dies in harness leaving his family in immediate need of assistance.

Clause 5(c) of the said policy provides that, "In all cases where one or more members of the family are already in Govt. Service or in employment of Autonomous Bodies/Boards/Corporation etc., of the State/Central Govt. 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 Govt. 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."

Thus, the Petitioner was not entitled for appointment on compassionate basis in view of Clause-5(c) of the relevant policy as his mother was already in a government job. Hence, the Respondents have rightly rejected the case of the Petitioner for his appointment on compassionate basis. Therefore, no ground for interference, while exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Tags : Appointment Entitlement Policy

Share :