Quashed

Vipan Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026CWP/10190/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment after father's death. Complaint rejected for exceeding family income limit by counting only three members. Court held married daughters count in family strength. Impugned order quashed; fresh consideration directed within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.10.2023 quashed; respondents directed to reconsider petitioner's case for compassionate appointment within six weeks.

Vipan Kumar Vs the State of Hp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.10190 of 2024 Decided on: 15^th September, 2026

Vipan Kumar

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Anuj Gupta and Mr. Surjeet Kumar, Advocates.

¶12

For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

Petitioner’s grievance is to the decision of the respondents contained in office letter dated 16.10.2023, rejecting the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds on account of his failing to meet the income criteria prescribed in the instructions dated 07.03.2019 and 01.11.2019 issued by the Finance Department.

¶15

2. Heard and considered the case file.

¶16

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶17

¶18

3. Petitioner’s father-Sh. Achhru was a regular Beldar in the respondent-Public Works Department. He died in harness on 29.03.2020 and was survived by five legal heirs, viz. three daughters, wife and a son. After the death of petitioner’s father, family pension was granted in favour of his wife-mother of the petitioner. Petitioner applied for employment on compassionate grounds. His case was processed by the respondents. On 16.10.2023, the Departmental Screening Committee scrutinized and rejected petitioner’s case with the observation that the petitioner does not meet the income criteria as prescribed in the office instructions dated 07.03.2019 and 01.11.2019. That total income of petitioner’s family comes to Rs.2,86,148/-, i.e. Rs.2,46,148 (family pension) + Rs.40,000 (income from other sources). The income, being in excess of prescribed limit of Rs.1,87,500/- for a family of three members, the respondents turned down petitioner’s case. The individual income limit under the aforesaid office instructions has been fixed by the State at Rs.62,500/-, whereas in petitioner’s case, individual income comes to Rs.82,049/-.

¶19

4. While ascertaining the satisfaction of income criteria by petitioner’s family vis-à-vis the actual income of

¶20

¶21

his family, the respondents have erroneously treated petitioner’s family to be consisting of three members. It is the pleaded case of the respondents that petitioner’s family consisted of five members. It appears that the respondents have excluded two married daughters of late Sh. Achhru. In accordance with the decision rendered in Rakesh Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others² , married daughters are liable to be considered as part of family of the deceased and income of the family is to be computed accordingly. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as

¶22

under:-

¶23

“6. This Court wants to make an observation that when the deceased was survived by his wife, two sons and a daughter, then not considering the daughter to be a part of the family of the deceased so as to assess as to whether the per person annual income of the family members of the deceased falls within the prescribed limit or not, is arbitrary. Simply because the daughter is married, this does not means that she loses her identity as member of the family of her father. The Court is making this observation for the reason that it is not as if on account of the marriage of the sons of the deceased, the wives of the sons of the deceased stand included as family members for this purpose. In case the criteria fixed by the Government is taken to its logical conclusion, then the factual position is that a girl by virtue of marriage loses her identity both as a daughter of her father as well as a member of her husband’s family, for the purpose of being counted as a family member to assess the income of the members of the deceased family for compassionate appointment. This in the considered view of the Court is arbitrary and discriminatory. There is no rationale as to why a

¶24

2 CWPOA No.6065 of 2019, decided on 02.06.2022

¶25

¶26

daughter after marriage should not be counted as member of the family for the purpose of assessing the annual family income for compassionate appointment. In case the criteria so fixed by the Government is given the stamp of approval by the Court, then the Court will also become a party to this gender inequality, being practised by the State. Therefore, in these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the annual family income of the deceased in the present case has to be assessed by considering the strength of the family to be four, i.e., wife, two sons and a daughter. The Policy has to be read down as such. Now, if the number of the family is taken to be as four, then if a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- is divided by four, there is no dispute that individual annual income per family member comes to less than Rs.31,250/-.

¶27

7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by holding that the act of the respondent-State considering the income of the individual family member of the deceased to be Rs.31,707/- by ignoring the daughter of the deceased, while taking into consideration the number of the family members/dependents is arbitrary and mandamus is issued to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis as per his qualification, as from the date of filing of the petition. The appointment of the petitioner from the said date shall be deemed to be notional for all intents and purposes, including monetary and actual benefits thereupon shall accrue to the petitioner as from the date of appointment, which shall be offered to the petitioner not later than 15th July, 2022.”

¶28

It is not in dispute that CMP(M) No.937 of 2023

¶29

(The State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Versus

¶30

Rakesh Kumar) , filed in the Letters Patent Appeal arising out of the aforesaid judgment, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 02.07.2024.

¶31

It is also an admitted position that Hon’ble Apex Court on 11.11.2024, has dismissed SLP (Civil) Diary

¶32

¶33

No(s).48949/2024 , arising out of aforesaid decision, on the

¶34

ground of delay, leaving the question of law open for being considered in an appropriate case.

¶35

memorandum dated 07.03.2019, indigency is to be assessed as under:-

¶36

“Income Criteria will be an important criteria to determine indigency. The maximum ceiling of total family income to assess indigency is fixed as Rs.2,25,000/-, presuming a family of 04 persons. Even if the number of family persons exceeds 04, the family size will still be presumed to be 04. If the family members are less than 04, then income of the family would be calculated by multiplying Rs.56,250/- by the number of family members. Thus, if the family size is 03, the maximum income limit would be Rs.1,68,750/per annum to determine indigency. If family size is 02, the income limit would be Rs.1,12,500/- per annum to determine indigency. The above income criteria has been mentioned to bring objectivity in the determination of indigency of a family/applicant.”

¶37

The above provision underwent following

¶38

amendment under office memorandum dated 01.11.2019:-

¶39

“Income Criteria will be an important criteria to determine indigency. The maximum ceiling of total family income to assess indigency is fixed as Rs.2,50,000/-, presuming a family of 04 persons. Even if the number of family persons exceeds 04, the family size will still be presumed to be 04. If the family members are less than 04, then income of the family would be calculated by multiplying Rs.62,500/- by the number of family members. Thus, if the family size is 03, the maximum income limit would be Rs.1,87,500/per annum to determine indigency. If family size is 02, the income limit would be Rs.1,25,000/- per annum to determine indigency. The above income criteria has

¶40

¶41

been mentioned to bring objectivity in the determination of indigency of a family/applicant.”

¶42

In the instant case, at the time of death,

¶43

deceased was survived by his wife, three daughters and a son, i.e. five members in all, whereas, the respondents have determined eligibility of the petitioner vis-à-vis satisfaction of laid down income criteria by incorrectly treating his family to be of three persons.

¶44

5. In view of above, the impugned decision dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure P-8), to the extent it rejects petitioner’s case for employment on compassionate grounds, is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds afresh keeping in view the above observations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This exercise be now carried out within six weeks from today. The order so passed, be communicated to the petitioner.

¶45

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶46

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶47

September 15, 2026 Mukesh

Vipan Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipan Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases