Supreme Court upholds State Policy on compassionate appointment: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Parkash Chand (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 January 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 28
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a High Court direct a State government to disregard its own policy on compassionate appointments? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the limits of judicial review in such matters. This case revolves around the denial of compassionate appointment to the son of a deceased government employee because his brother was already employed by a State undertaking, despite the brothers living separately. The Supreme Court bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J. delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The respondent’s father, a Peon in the Revenue Department of Himachal Pradesh, passed away on January 4, 1997. At the time of his father’s death, the respondent was a minor. He reached the age of majority on November 17, 2002. The State’s policy on compassionate appointment, dated January 18, 1990, stipulates that if none of the deceased employee’s children are of the age of majority at the time of death, an application for compassionate appointment can be made when the eldest child reaches 21 years of age. The respondent applied for compassionate appointment after attaining majority. However, his application was rejected on April 25, 2008, because his brother was already employed with the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board. The respondent contended that his brother lived separately from him and submitted a ration card and a certificate from the Gram Panchayat Pradhan to support his claim.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, seeking to quash the rejection letter dated April 25, 2008, and requesting appointment as a Peon on compassionate grounds. The High Court, in a batch of cases, considered the issue of whether compassionate appointment could be denied if another dependent of the deceased employee was already in service, even if living separately. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the State to consider applications even if another family member was employed, which effectively disregarded the State’s policy. The State of Himachal Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The State Government’s policy on compassionate appointment, dated January 18, 1990, contains the following conditions of eligibility in paragraph 5(c):

“In all cases where one or more members of the family are already in government service or in employment of autonomous bodies/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.”

This policy stipulates that compassionate appointment should not be given if another family member is already employed by the State or Central Government or their undertakings. However, an exception is made for the widow of the deceased employee if she is not being supported by her employed children. In such cases, the decision rests with the Council of Ministers after considering the opinion of the Department of Personnel and Finance Department.

Arguments

Arguments of the Respondent:

• The respondent argued that his elder brother was living separately and was not a part of his family.
• The respondent relied on a ration card and a certificate from the Gram Panchayat Pradhan to prove that his brother had been living separately for the past 17 years.
• The respondent contended that since his brother was not supporting him, he should be considered for compassionate appointment.

Arguments of the Appellant (State of Himachal Pradesh):

• The State argued that its policy clearly states that if one family member is already employed by the State or its undertakings, another family member is not eligible for compassionate appointment.
• The State contended that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the State to disregard its own policy.
• The State argued that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is governed by the terms of the policy.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was:

✓ Whether the High Court could direct the State to disregard its policy regarding compassionate appointments, particularly when another family member is already employed by the government or its undertakings.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on a series of its previous judgments, including Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana [CITATION] , General Manager (D&PB) Vs. Kunti Tiwary [CITATION] , Punjab National Bank Vs. Ashwani Kumar Teneja [CITATION] , State Bank of India Vs. Somvir Singh [CITATION] , Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra [CITATION] , Union of India Vs. Shashank Goswami [CITATION] , State Bank of India Vs. Surya Narain Tripathi [CITATION] and Canara Bank Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar [CITATION] to reiterate that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and must be governed by the terms of the policy. The Court distinguished the case of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India [CITATION] , stating that the finding in that case was specific to its facts and not relevant to the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is governed by the terms laid down by the State policy. The Court emphasized that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not allow the High Court to rewrite the terms of a policy. The Court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the policy’s stipulations, which aim to provide employment assistance to a family in genuine need without creating a parallel system of employment. The fact that the respondent’s brother was employed with a State undertaking was a significant factor, regardless of whether they lived separately. The Court’s reasoning focused on upholding the State’s policy to ensure that compassionate appointments are made within the framework designed by the State.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that “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.” The Court further stated, “In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to re-write the terms of the policy.” The Court also noted, “The High Court has virtually re-written the terms of the policy and has issued a direction to the State to consider applications which do not fulfill the terms of the policy. This is impermissible.”

Key Takeaways

• Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is governed by the terms of the State’s policy.
• High Courts cannot rewrite or disregard the terms of a State’s compassionate appointment policy through judicial review.
• If a State policy clearly stipulates that compassionate appointment cannot be granted if another family member is already employed by the State, such policy must be adhered to, regardless of whether the employed family member lives separately.
• The decision highlights the limits of judicial review in matters of policy and emphasizes the importance of adhering to the terms of the policy.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the directions issued by the High Court and rejected the writ petition filed by the respondent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is governed by the terms of the State’s policy. The judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts cannot rewrite or disregard the terms of a State’s compassionate appointment policy. This reaffirms the settled position of law regarding compassionate appointments and the limitations on judicial review in such matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Parkash Chand clarifies that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is subject to the terms of the State’s policy. The Court held that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the State to disregard its policy, emphasizing that judicial review cannot be used to rewrite the terms of a State policy. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the stipulations of compassionate appointment policies and the limitations on judicial intervention in such matters.