Case Name: Munish Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another
Citation: 2020 INSC 398
Date of Judgment/Order: 19 May 2020
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, Ajay Rastogi
Held: The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to reconsideration for compassionate appointment, as his claim should be assessed under the policy for employees who die while in service, irrespective of the posthumous approval of medical retirement.
Summary: The appellant’s father, a government employee, died on 16 June 2004. Prior to his death, he had applied for retirement on medical grounds, but the application was approved on 17 June 2004, after his death, with effect from 8 April 2003. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment, but his application was rejected on the grounds that his father had technically retired before his death under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which stipulated an age limit for employees retiring on medical grounds.
The appellant approached the High Court, but the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the compassionate appointment policy, which applies when an employee dies while in service, should govern his case.
The Court agreed with the appellant’s argument, holding that the fact that the retirement approval came posthumously did not alter the fact that the employee was alive at the time of application. The Court further clarified that the policy provisions related to employees dying in service, not those who retire, should apply to determine eligibility for compassionate appointment.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the State to reconsider the appellant’s application for compassionate appointment, with a final decision to be communicated within three months. If granted, the appellant would not be entitled to arrears of salary but would receive compensation from the date of joining.