HIGH COURT CAN NOT RE-WRITE THE TERMS OF THE POLICY FRAMED BY STATE

Rabia Basaria | Panjab University, Chandigarh | 1st February 2020

State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.  Vs.  Parkash ChandCivil Appeal No. 977 of 2019

Facts

• Respondent was minor when his father died on 4^th January, 1997, working as peon in Revenue Department
• The State of Himachal Pradesh framed the policy for Compassionate appointment, containing a stipulation that at the time of the death of the deceased governmentemployee non of his children has attained the age of majority. Then an application can be submitted on attainment of the age of 21 by the eldest child.
• The application was submitted by the respondent upon attaining the majority but the same was rejected on the ground that brother of the respondent is already in the service of Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board.
• The respondent filed the writ petition before the High Court, urging that his brother was living separately For 17 years and relied on a ration card and certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Pradhan and respondent in the relief sought a direction for setting aside the letter of rejection and for his appointment as a peon on compassionate ground. 
• The policy framed by the State Government contains the eligibility in Paragraph 5(c) which states that where one or more persons of the family already in the service of government, employment assistance should not be provided to the other members of the family. Only widow is exception to this if the children of the widow are not supporting her.

Issue:- 

Where one or more persons of the family are already in the service of government, then whether the employment assistance should be provided to the other members of the family.

HIGH COURT OBESERBVATION:- 

The High Court observed that state should consider the cases for appointment on compassionate basis, even though one member of the family already engaged in the government service.

HELD:-

The court held that the High Court observation virtually amount to mandamus to the state government to disregard the terms which have been stipulated in paragraph 5(c) of its policy and it was not open to the High Court to re-write the term of the policy. 

Therefore the court held that the judgment of the High Court unsustainable and the court set aside the directions issued by the high court in its impugned judgment.