The State of Hp and Others Vs Vinod Kumar

of 2023, titled Vinod Kumar Vs. State of HP and others , was allowed on 10.05.2024, and learned Single Judge, has directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent afresh in terms of policy, which

¶14

was in vogue at the time of death of the father of respondent. Resultantly, the order rejecting the case, as such, dated 22.08.2020, has been quashed.

¶15

In the present case, the learned Single Judge observed that the father of the respondent had died on 03.05.2015 and the

¶16

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

¶17

-2-

¶18

decision making, as such, was done on 22.08.2020 and in the intervening period the instructions had come to fore in the year 2019. The respondent had also applied in the year 2016, prior to the new instructions coming into force.

¶19

The argument thus raised by the learned Additional Advocate General have been rejected by us time and again and reference can be made to the decision taken in LPA No.797 of 2025, the State of HP and Others Versus Sarita Devi , decided on 19.11.2025. In this regard, the learned Single Judge also relied upon the judgment passed in State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Ashish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157 . Apart from this, reliance has also been placed upon State of Karnataka Vs. Bheemesh, (2021) 20 SCC 707 .

¶20

In the order passed in Sarita Devi’s case, we have also relied upon the judgment of three-Judge Bench of Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Verus Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496 to hold that the date of death is the only factor, which does not change, therefore, the consideration has to be done accordingly so that differential treatment cannot be given to the employees. The relevant paragraphs of Sarita Devi read as under: -

¶21

“15. However, counsel for the respondent has fallen back on another three-Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Amit Shrivas (2020) 10 SCC 496 , decided on 29.09.2020, subsequent of the judgment of N.C. Santhosh case (supra), which was

¶22

-3-

¶23

decided on 04.03.2020. The observations in subsequent judgment as such would go on to show that it is the date of demise which has to be seen, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively. The relevant paragraph reads as under:-

¶24

“16. It is trite to say that there cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide succour to a needy family. This has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively. Insofar as providing succour is concerned, unfortunately, since the demise of the late father of the respondent, 11 years have passed and really speaking, the aspect of providing succour to the family immediately does not survive. We have still examined the matter in the conspectus of the applicable policy. It is not in question that the Policy prevailing was one dated 18- 8-2008. Clause 12.1 clearly prescribes workcharge/contingency fund and daily wager employees from compassionate appointment. The gravemen of the submission of the respondent is based on the classification of his late father as a permanent employee on account of having worked for more than 15 years and the consequent regularisation of his service.”

¶25

16. It is also to be noticed that in the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Bheemesh (2021) 20 SCC

¶26

707 , while taking into consideration the three-Judge Bench judgment of N.C. Santhosh case (supra) another two Judge of the Apex Court as such had come to the conclusion that the fixed factor is only the date of death that does not change and therefore on account of the fact that the date of application and the date of consideration of the policy would be different, the differential treatment should not be given to

¶27

-4-

¶28

the employees. The relevant paragraph reads as under:-

¶29

“20. The important aspect about the conflict of opinion is that it revolves around two dates, namely, (i) date of death of the employee; and (ii) date of consideration of the application of the dependant. Out of these two dates, only one, namely, the date of death alone is a fixed factor that does not change. The next date, namely, the date of consideration of the claim, is something that depends upon many variables such as the date of filing of application, the date of attaining of majority of the claimant and the date on which the file is put up to the competent authority. There is no principle of statutory interpretation which permits a decision on the applicability of a rule, to be based upon an indeterminate or variable factor. Let us take for instance a hypothetical case where 2 government serviant dies in harness on 1-1-2020. Let us assume that the dependants of these 2 deceased government servants make applications for appointment on 2 different dates say 29-5-2020 and 2-6-2020 and a modified Scheme comes into force on 1-6-2020. If the date of consideration of the claim is taken to be the criteria for determining whether the modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead to two different results, one in respect of the person who made the application before 1-6-2020 and another in respect of the person who applied after 1-6-2020. In other words, if two employees die on the same date and the dependants of those employees apply on two different dates, one before the modified Scheme comes into force and another thereafter, they will come in for differential treatment if the date of application and the date of consideration of the same are taken to be the deciding factor. A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is inconceivable. This is why, the

¶30

-5-

¶31

managements of a few banks, in the cases tabulated above, have introduced a rule in the modified scheme itself, which provides for all pending applications to be decided under the new/modified scheme. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor.”

¶32

Thus, we are of the considered view that the learned

¶33

Single Judge has not erred in any manner in allowing the writ petition and we do not find any plausible reason to take a different view. Resultantly, the Letters Patent Appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶35

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶36

05^th March, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)

The State of Hp and Others v. Vinod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Hp and Others v. Vinod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chaman Lal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Sarvajeet Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

M/S Om Ca Store Vs UOI and Others

Archit Butail Vs UOI and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Niram Chand and Another

Tek Chand Vs District Red Cross Society