Sunil Dutt vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 16021 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                   CWP No. 2844 of 2023
                                                   Decided on : 11.10.2023




                                                                       .

      Sunil Dutt                                                           ....Petitioner

                   Versus





      State of Himachal Pradesh and others                              ...Respondents
      Coram
      The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
      Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes





      For the petitioner          :       Mr. Shubham Kashyap, Advocate.

      For the respondents         :       M/s Rupinder Singh Thakur and
                                          Pushpender Jaswal, Additional
                      r                   Advocate General with M/s

                                          Ranjna Patial and Sumit
                                          Sharma, Deputy Advocate
                                          Generals.


      Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge              (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia

prayed for the following reliefs:-

"b. To issue a suitable writ, order or direction

especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing

the impugned orders dated 16.11.2022(P-2)

whereby the claim of the petitioner for

Compassionate appointment has been rejected in

the most illegal, arbitrary and perverse manner

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

and same is rejected without considering the

policy dated 18.01.1990.

.

c. To issue a suitable writ, order of direction

especially in the nature of mandamus directing

the respondents to consider afresh the claim of

petitioner under the policy dated 18.01.1990 and

to give him Compassion appointment alongwith

all consequential benefits that flows therefrom.

d. Prayer to issue such other suit writ, order or

direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in

the facts and circumstances of this case."

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the

petition are that the father of the petitioner, who was a

regular employee of Indira Gandhi Medical College and

Hospital, Shimla, died in harness on 12.06.2015. The

petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate basis

after the death of his father on 05.12.2016. His application

has been rejected by the respondents vide Annexure P-2,

dated 02.11.2022, on the ground that the family income of

the petitioner was in excess of the income criteria fixed by the

Government.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that

the rejection of the case of the petitioner on the grounds, as

.

are mentioned in Annexure P-2, is not sustainable for the

reason that the family income of the petitioner was well within

the fixed ceiling as was prevailing as on the date when the

case of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the

Department. Learned Counsel has produced a copy of office

order dated 01.11.2019, which is ordered to be taken on

record. By referring to Clause 12 thereof, he has submitted

that office memorandum dated 07.03.2019, stood amended

vide office memorandum dated 01.11.2019 to the extent that

maximum ceiling of total family income to assess indigency

was hiked from Rs.2,25,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- Yet, the case

of the petitioner was rejected by the Department on erroneous

consideration. Accordingly, he has prayed that the impugned

order be set aside and the respondents be directed to grant

compassionate appointment to the petitioner as per law.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has defended

the act of the Department by submitting that as the

maximum ceiling of total family income to assess indigency

was fixed at Rs. 2,25,000/- as per office memorandum dated

07.03.2019, the act of the respondents of rejecting the case of

the petitioner could not be faulted with. However, he was not

able to deny the fact that this office memorandum dated

.

07.03.2019, stood modified vide office memorandum dated

01.11.2019, by substituting the figure of Rs. 2,25,000/- by

Rs. 2,50,000/-.

5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and

taking into consideration the fact that the case of the

petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis has been

rejected by the respondent-Department by erroneously

construing the fixed ceiling of total income of the family to be

Rs.2,25,000/- per annum whereas as on the date of

consideration, the same stood enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000/- as

per office memorandum dated 01.11.2019, the impugned act

of the respondent-Department cannot be sustained in law.

6. It is a matter of record that the policy framed vide

office memorandum dated 07.03.2019 was amended vide

office memorandum dated 01.11.2019. In terms of the

amendment, the maximum ceiling of total family income to

assess indigency was hiked from Rs.2,25,000/- to

Rs.2,50,000/-. Yet when the case of the petitioner was

considered by the Department, it erroneously took the

maximum ceiling of totally family income to assess indigency

to be Rs.2,25,000/- rather than Rs.2,50,000/- The rejection

of the case of the petitioner was thus in violation of the

.

amendment that was carried out in the policy framed for

appointment on compassionate basis on 01.11.2019.

Therefore, impugned communication dated 02.11.2022 being

hit by office memorandum dated 01.11.2019, cannot be

sustained in law and is quashed and set aside.

7. Accordingly, in view of the admission made by the

Department in the reply itself that the family income of the

petitioner was less than the maximum ceiling of total family

income prescribed vide office memorandum dated 01.11.2019

and there was no other reason assigned in the impugned

order Annexure P-2 for rejecting the case of the petitioner for

appointment on compassionate basis, direction is issued to

the respondent-Department to offer appointment on

compassionate basis to the petitioner, taking into

consideration his educational qualification within a period of

eight weeks from today, subject to the post being available in

terms of the quota prescribed for offering appointment on

compassionate basis.

With these observations, the petition stands

disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

.

stand disposed of accordingly.

                                            (Ajay Mohan Goel)
    October 11, 2023                               Judge
       (narender)





                       r           to