Jindo Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3434 HP

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                                  CWP No. 4612 of 2020
                                  Decided on: 03.08.2021
    __________________________________________________________________




                                                                         .
    Jindo Devi                                       ....Petitioner





                            Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh & others              ......Respondents
    __________________________________________________________________





    Coram
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
    1 Whether    approved for reporting?
    ______________________________________________________
    For the petitioner:                       Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate,





                                              (through video conferencing).

    For the respondents:                      Mr. Arvind Sharma, Mr. P.K. Bhatti
                                              and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Additional
                                              Advocates General, with Mr. Amit
                      r                       Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General

                                              and Mr. Manoj Bagga, Assistant
                                              Advocate General.

    Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.                       (oral)

Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the

petitioner, while arguing the matter, invited the attention of this

Court to the reply filed by the respondents, more particularly, para

3(b) of preliminary submissions and para 2 of reply on merits,

which, for the sake of ready reference, are extracted hereunder:

"Preliminary submissions:

3(b) That while filing the present writ petition the petitioner being widow of the deceased Govt. Servant/workman late Sh. Prakash Chand who was working as Beldar after his death on 10.01.2010, sought appointment as Sweeper, Beldar and any of the category of class-IV on compassionate grounds. The deceased left behind family of 7 members consisting petitioner/wife, two sons and four daughters. The daughters of deceased have already been

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

married. Thus, there are only three dependent members in the family of deceased. The applicant in this case has applied for the post of Sweeper, Beldar/Class-IV. In R&P Rules of Beldar/Class-IV educational qualification prescribed is Middle pass. The petitioner has

.

non-literate and does not possess the requisite

qualification. Therefore, applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that the petitioner was called by the respondent No. 4 vide letter No. 1175 dated 07.07.20212 & No. 6199-6200 dated

03.03.2016 to submit the required documents but she failed to provide the required documents. Despite providing the requisite documents the petitioner filed present wit petition before this Hon'ble High Court which is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

                     ...      ...       ...      ...       ...        ...       ...

              Reply on merits:

2. That the contents of this para are admitted to partly. It is however, submitted that the r petitioner's son named Ashwani Kumar S/o late Sh. Parkash Chand, Beldar had applied firstly

for employment under compassionate grounds and thereafter, the case of the petitioner's son was scrutinized as per Govt. policy and the same was rejected as per guidelines issued by the Principal Secretary (PW) to the Govt. of H.P. vide letter No. PBW-AB-(2)-166/2010 dated

07.01.2010 wherein it has been intimated that the employment assistance on compassionate grounds is extended to only widow and orphan of deceased Govt. employees. It is further submitted that the petitioner was called vide

letter No. 1175 dated 07.07.2012 & No. 6199- 6200 dated 03.03.2016 to submit the required documents, but she has failed to provide the

required documents. Despite providing the requisite documents the petitioner filed present writ petition before this Hon'ble High Court which is not maintainable and deserves to dismiss. Therefore, applicant does not reflect

any indigence of family of deceased Govt. servant which can be considered for providing immediate need of subsistence to the family of deceased workman. It is further submitted that the petitioner i.e. widow of the workman is drawing the monthly pension of Rs. 12,456/- as per statement."

2. Mr. Sharma, further submitted that though the

petitioner has already submitted the documents, but she will

resubmit the same and the respondents be directed to consider her

case for compassionate appointment on account of death of her

husband, Shri Prakash Chand, who died in harness, in a time

.

bound manner. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned

Additional Advocate General, states that till the documents

are not supplied by the petitioner to the respondents, her case

cannot be considered.

3. In the above backdrop, the instant petition is disposed

of directing the petitioner to submit the requisite documents to the

respondents, alongwith an application, and after the documents

are submitted/supplied, alongwith the application, the

respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment in accordance with rules, within a

period of two months thereafter.

3. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so

also pending application(s), if any.

Copy dasti.

( Chander Bhusan Barowalia ) Judge 3rd August, 2021 (virender)