PITAMBER SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondent-department to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Perusal of communication dated 8.7.2015 (Annexure A-1) reveals that case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds came to be considered by the Government, but same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had crossed the maximum limit of income @ Rs. 1,25,000/- per annum with an individual limit of Rs. 31,250/- per annum per head. Since it is not in dispute that at the time of consideration of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, Finance Department had fixed the maximum limit of income @ Rs. 1,25,000/- per annum with an individual limit of Rs. 31,250/- per annum per head, no fault, if any, can be found with the action of the respondent in as much as rejection of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is concerned.

(2.) However, at this stage, Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the latest judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Shashi Kumar, 2019 3 SCC 653, contends that now since State Governments have been directed to enhance the maximum limit of income, petitioner would be content and satisfied, in case respondents are directed to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds afresh in terms of fresh guidelines, if any, framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh pursuant to directions contained in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, relevant para of which is reads as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that pursuant to aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, State of Himachal Pradesh has revised the income limit, whereby maximum limit of income has been fixed @ Rs.2,25,000/- per annum. If it is so, case of the petitioner is required to be considered afresh by the authority concerned in terms of the latest policy.