Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court has stated that the terms of the compassionate appointment policy cannot be rewritten by the High Court in the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench comprised of Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta in front of whom the state has appealed against the High Court judgment where the children of the deceased government employees filed a case on this basis.
There was a stipulation in the state policy which was formulated in the year 1990 which states that if one or more members of the family are State government employers or of autonomous bodies, corporations, etc of State or Central Government, any other member of the family should not be provided employment assistance for the government job. However, in the case when a deceased widow of government employee claims her employed children are not supporting her then it is an exception.
Supreme Court allowing the appeal filed by the state, said that “The High Court direction was amounting to Mandamus to State Government asking to disregard the terms which have been stipulated in paragraph 5(c) of its policy. A limited exception was contained in the policy which is only available to a widow of a deceased employee who seeks a compassionate appointment even after one of the children is an employee of the State. The basis for this exception is to deal with cases where there is no support being given to the widow by her children.”
Another Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment was also set aside by the same bench in which it was directed that the state should desist from taking into account the family pension and other benefits. The court observed in the said case that policy mandates that the receipt of family pension should be taken into account in considering whether the family has been left in indigent circumstances requiring immediate means of subsidies.
The bench has concluded that as per the views of clear terms of Policy issuing Writ of Mandamus to Government was an error made by the High Court and such direction could not have been issued by the High Court.
86540
103860
630
114
59824