LEELA BHAGTI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER lost her husband on 20.10.2007. Petitioner submitted an application seeking employment on compassionate basis. Case of the petitioner was rejected on 6.3.2009. Petitioner was informed that her case did not fall within the income/indigency criteria adopted for giving appointment on compassionate basis. Petitioner also made a representation on 28.8.2013. Representation till date has not been decided. It is evident from the income certificate Annexure P -4 that the total income of the petitioner is Rs. 1,17,000/ -. Family pension is Rs. 72,512/ -. Family pension has also been included in annual income of Rs. 1,17,000/ -. It is settled law by now that while computing the income of family for the purpose of compassionate appointment, the pensionary/retiral benefits should not be taken into consideration.

(2.) THEIR Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others,, (2005) 10 SCC 289, while dealing with almost similar situation has held as under:

(3.) SIMILAR view has been taken by this Court in CWP No. 9965 of 2011 titled as Vikas Kumar vs. State of H.P., decided on 28.8.2012, CWP No. 4852 of 2013, titled as Ashwani Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 29.7.2013 and CWP No. 9637 of 2013, titled as Parvinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 2.1.2014.