IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7790 of 2021 Decided on: 13th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gurpreet Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.8821 of 2025 Allowed and disposed of. CWP No.7790 of 2021 Petitioner’s father-Sh. Dharam Pal was serving as Head Constable in the respondent-Police Department. He died in harness on 09.02.2017. Petitioner applied for compassionate employment on 06.10.2017. Respondents rejected petitioner’s case for providing him employment on compassionate grounds on 04.06.2021. The reason for 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 rejecting petitioner’s case was that:- Petitioner’s family income was Rs.5 Lakhs per annum on 05.04.2018 (family pension Rs.3,18,752 + income from other sources Rs.1,81,248/-); There were 05 members in petitioner’s family; Petitioner does not meet the financial/income criteria fixed by the State of Himachal Pradesh on 07.03.2019; Under government instructions dated 07.03.2019, maximum ceiling of total family income to assess the indigency has been fixed as Rs.2,50,000/- presuming a family of 04 persons. Even if number of family members exceeds 04, the family size will still be presumed as 04. If the family members are less than 04, then, income of family would be calculated by multiplying Rs.62,500/- by the number of family members. Petitioner’s annual family income being Rs.5 Lakhs as on 05.04.2018, he did not satisfy the ceiling limit for family income set under the government instructions dated 07.03.2019. 2. Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid decision of the respondents. 3. In State of Madhya Pradesh and others Versus Ashish Awasthi2, Hon’ble Apex Court held that the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased 2 (2022) 2 SCC 157 3 employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy. Relevant paras from the decision read as under:- “4. The deceased employee died on 8-10-2015. At the time of death, he was working as a work-charged employee, who was paid the salary from the contingency fund. As per the policy/circular prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee i.e. Policy/Circular No.C-3- 12/2013/ 1-3 dated 29-9-2014 in case of death of the employee working on work charge, his dependents/heirs were not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs.2 lakhs as compensatory amount. Subsequently, the policy came to be amended vide circular dated 31-08-2016, under which even in the case of death of the work charge employee, his heirs/dependents will be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. Relying upon the subsequent Circular/Policy dated 31-08-2016, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. As per the settled preposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy. 6. In Indian Bank v. Promila3, it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in State of M.P. v. Amrit Shrivas4. It is required to be noted that in Amit Shrivas5 the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. The submission on behalf of the respondent that after the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the respondent has been appointed and therefore his 3 (2020) 2 SCC 729 4 (2020) 10 SCC 496 4 appointment may not be disturbed, deserves rejection. Once the judgment and order passed by the Division bench under which respondent is appointed is quashed and set aside, necessary consequences shall follow and the appointment of the respondent, which was pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be protected. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Jabalpur in WA No.1559 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside by observing that the respondent shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent circular/policy dated 31-8-2016.” Admittedly, father of the petitioner had died on 09.02.2017. Petitioner had applied for compassionate employment on 06.10.2017. His case, therefore, could not have been considered by the respondents under government instructions dated 07.03.2019, which came into force subsequently. For that reason alone, this writ petition is allowed. The decision taken by the respondents under office communication dated 04.06.2021 (Annexure P-6) qua the petitioner (Sr. No.13) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and as per the policy in vogue at the relevant time. This exercise be carried out within six weeks from today. 5 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 13, 2025 Judge Mukesh