Pallavi Vs the MD Hpsfdc and Another

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

Petitioner was appointed on compassionate

¶13

grounds on daily wage basis as a Class-IV employee. Her case is that she should have been appointed on compassionate grounds on contract basis and not on daily wage basis. Feeling aggrieved against the respondents’ action of appointing her on compassionate grounds on daily wage basis, she has preferred this writ petition.

¶14

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶15

2 -

¶16

2. The factual matrix of the case:-

¶17

2(i) Sh. Bal Krishan, father of the petitioner, was

¶18

appointed as daily waged worker on 01.05.1989 in the respondent-Forest Development Corporation. His services were regularized on 01.04.2003. Petitioner’s father died in harness on 12.06.2020. He was serving as Chowkidar at the time of his death.

¶19

2(ii) Petitioner applied for employment on compassionate grounds with the respondent-Forest Development Corporation. She was appointed as Class-IV employee on compassionate grounds on 13.04.2022, on daily wage basis. Petitioner accepted the offer of appointment and accordingly joined her duties.

¶20

In this writ petition, filed on 04.03.2025, petitioner claims that she should have been employed on compassionate grounds on contract/regular basis on 13.04.2022, instead of daily wage basis.

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was required to be given compassionate appointment on contract basis as per Compassionate Appointment Policy, 1990. Petitioner’s father was working as

¶22

3 -

¶23

regular employee with the respondent-Forest Development Corporation at the time of his death, therefore, petitioner is entitled for contract appointment on compassionate grounds instead of, on daily wage basis. In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon Surinder Kumar Vs. State of

¶24

Himachal Pradesh & Ors² .

¶25

4. Consideration

¶26

4(i) Admittedly, petitioner’s father died in harness on

¶27

12.06.2020 as a regular Class-IV employee. By that time, Compassionate Appointment Policy, notified on 07.03.2019 had come into force. Petitioner has also placed this policy on record at Annexure P-2. Para-4 of this policy, being relevant, is extracted hereinafter:-

¶28

“4) Post to which such appointment can be made:-

¶29

The compassionate appointment is to be provided basically in the department to which the deceased Govt. employee or the medically retired Government employee belonged, subject to fulfilment of minimum educational qualifications and such skills as are prescribed for the post. In exceptional cases, where the post does not exist in the Department concerned, the said Department may recommend appointment in another department, to the Finance Department, subject to availability of vacancies in the concerned Department. On receiving the request, Finance Department will send the matter to the

¶30

2 CWP No.8168 of 2023, decided on 05.12.2024

¶31

4 -

¶32

concerned Department to consider the appointment. The appointment on compassionate grounds can be made only to the lowest rung of class-IV and Class-III posts. The compassionate employment can be given against Class-III posts on Contract basis, in case the applicant has requisite qualifications prescribed for the job as per R & P Rules. In case the deceased was a daily waged worker the employment assistance shall be given on daily wage basis only. Compassionate employment to be given against on Class-IV posts will only be on Daily Wage basis. Under no circumstances, appointment(s) should be made against the Class-III posts, which require technical/professional qualifications.”

¶33

The above policy clearly provides that

¶34

compassionate employment to be given against Class-IV post will only be on daily wage basis.

¶35

4(ii) Petitioner was offered compassionate appointment against Class-IV post on daily wage basis, which she accepted on 13.04.2022. After accepting compassionate appointment on daily wage basis against Class-IV post without any demur or protest, petitioner cannot be heard to complain that she should have been appointed on compassionate grounds against Class-IV post on contract/regular basis. In fact, no such provision in the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2019, under which petitioner was appointed has been shown.

¶36

5 -

¶37

The provision quoted in para supra rather stipulates that all compassionate appointments on Class-IV posts will only be on daily wage basis. There is no challenge to the Policy in this petition.

¶38

4(iii) The ratio of decision rendered in Surinder Kumar’s² case will not be applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the aforesaid case, death of Government servant had taken place on 26.02.2003 and the compassionate employment was offered under the provisions of then applicable 1990 Compassionate Appointment Policy. The instant case is covered by 2019 Policy.

¶39

5. In view of above, no case for grant of relief prayed for by the petitioner is made out.

¶40

Consequently, there is no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

¶41

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.

¶42

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶43

March 18, 2025 R.Atal

Pallavi v. the MD Hpsfdc and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pallavi v. the MD Hpsfdc and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reena Kumari Vs State of Hp and Others

Joginder Pal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kanshi Ram Vs the Hrtc and Others

Mushu Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Radhey Shyam Vs State of Hp and Others

Sarita Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others