Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 28.6.2024 vs State Of H.P. Through Principal ... on 30 July, 2024

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

12024:HHC:6022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWPOA No. 7821 of 2019

Reserved on: 28.6.2024

Decided on: 30.7.2024

Jaswinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Forest) to the Govt. of H.P. & ors.

r ...Respondents

____________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? yes

____________________________________________________

For the Petitioner: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate.

For the Respondents :Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl.

A.G. Virender Singh, Judge

Petitioner Jaswinder Singh has invoked the

jurisdiction of the erstwhile H.P. Administrative

Tribunal, under Section 19 of the Administrative

Tribunals Act, 1985, by way of Original Application No.

3288 of 2016, seeking the following relief(s):

22024:HHC:6022

"(i) That the impugned order dated 22.9.2015 passed by respondent No. 3 may kindly be quashed to the extent that the claim of the applicant is rejected for the post of Forest Guard and further direction to the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of Forest Guard as per the R& P Rules and policy prevailing at the time when the applicant has applied for the appointment on compassionate ground to the post of Forest Guard.

.

(ii) That in the alternative, the case of the applicant may be

considered for the appointment on compassionate grounds for the post of Class-IV in the interest of justice and fair play."

2. After abolition of the Tribunal, the said

Original Application was transferred to this Court,

and has been registered as CWPOA No. 7821 of 2019.

The above mentioned relief(s) has been sought

on the ground that the father of the petitioner died in

harness on 20.7.2007, who was working as Forest

Worker in the respondent department. Thereafter, the

petitioner, being the legal heir, has moved the

application for appointment on compassionate

grounds, as per policy in vogue, as Forest Guard,

being fully eligible for the said post. His application

was processed and he was called for interview by the

respondents, on 3.9.2008. The interview was held on

9.9.2008. The petitioner appeared in the interview

and qualified the 'Physical Measurement', Physical

Efficiency Test' and 'Personal Interview'. Thereafter,

32024:HHC:6022

his complete case was sent to the Principal (CCF),

H.P., by the Conservator of the Forests, Bilaspur, H.P.,

however, he was not appointed by the respondents.

4. Later on, on 7.5.2013, respondent No. 1 issued

a letter to respondent No. 2, wherein, it has been

mentioned that the case of the petitioner was

considered in consultation with the Finance

Department, for extending employment on

compassionate grounds under 'died in harness' policy

and the Finance Department has advised to provide

the copy of PPO issued in favour of eligible dependents

of the deceased government employee, alongwith

calculation sheet, wherein income from pension, as

well as, income from all other sources, in respect of

the family, on the date of submission of application for

compassionate employment by his/her dependents,

should be depicted. The said letter has been annexed

with the petition as Annexure A-3.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that all

the relevant documents were submitted to the

42024:HHC:6022

respondent-department, but, nothing positive had

been done by the department.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner had sought

information under the Right to Information Act. The

said information was supplied vide letter dated

18.10.2014, in which, it has been depicted that the

respondent department has offered appointment on

compassionate grounds to, as many as, 45

candidates, out of which, 10 Forest Guards have been

appointed, on compassionate grounds.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the

erstwhile Tribunal, by moving Original Application No.

1826 of 2015, which was decided on 2.7.2015,

directing the respondent-department to consider the

representation, moved by the petitioner,

sympathetically, and after affording an opportunity of

being heard, to the petitioner.

8. Consequently, the petitioner made a

representation, which was rejected by the

respondents, on 22.9.2015, mainly, on the ground,

52024:HHC:6022

that case of the petitioner for appointment, as Forest

Guard, is not covered under the new scheme, as the

R&P Rules, for appointment as Forest Guard, have

undergone a change, to the extent that the minimum

qualification, for appointment, as Forest Guard, has

been enhanced to 10+2 and the petitioner, being

matriculate, is not eligible to be appointed as Forest

Guard. In this regard, impugned order was issued on

22.9.2015, which has been annexed with the petition,

as Anexure A-6.

9. The said action of the respondent-department

has been challenged being wrong and illegal, as, the

competent authority has decided the representation

by holding that the case of the petitioner shall be

considered for the post of Class-IV. However,

according to the petitioner, case of the petitioner has

not even been considered for the post of Class-IV, on

compassionate grounds.

10. On all these submissions, it is the case of the

petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the

62024:HHC:6022

judgment, passed by this Court in CWP No. 9094 of

2012, titled as, 'Surinder Kumar vs. State of H.P.'.

This case law has been relied upon by the petitioner to

demonstrate that it has been held by this Court that

the policy, prevalent at the time, when, the petitioner

had applied for the post in question, shall be

considered. Hence, a prayer has been made to allow

the writ petition, as prayed for.

11. When, put to notice, the respondents have

opposed the prayer, as made in the writ petition, by

filing the reply, on the ground that the petitioner was

called for 'Physical Measurement' and 'Physical

Efficiency Test' and 'Personal Interview' on 2.7.2009.

The petitioner appeared in the said process and

qualified the same. Thereafter, the case of the

petitioner was submitted to Pr. CCF, H.P. by the

Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur, H.P. and then was

moved to Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, for appropriate

action. However, according to the respondents,

Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh,

72024:HHC:6022

vide office letter No. FFE-A (B) 2-3/2009, dated

7.5.2013 (Annexure R-1), asked the petitioner to

provide/supply the copy of Pension Payment Order,

issued in favour of the eligible dependents of the

deceased government employee(s) alongwith a

calculation sheet, mentioning therein income from

pension, as well as, from all other sources, in respect

of the family. After receiving the documents from the

petitioner, the same were submitted to the Pr. CCF,

HP, by Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur, vide letter

dated 12.6.2013 (Annexure R-II).

12. The fact, with regard to filing of OA No. 1826 of

2015, before the learned erstwhile Tribunal and

passing of the order, dated 2.7.2015, has not been

disputed. However, the respondents have taken the

plea that as per latest R & P Rules, governing the

recruitment of Forest Guard, the petitioner must have

passed 10+2 examination or its equivalent, whereas,

the petitioner is stated to be only matriculate, as

such, eligible for Class-IV post, only.

82024:HHC:6022

13. Relying upon the instructions, issued by the

Finance Department, on 19.7.2014, it is the stand of

the respondents-State that appointment on

compassionate grounds, may not be claimed as a

matter of right, nor, the petitioner becomes entitled

automatically for appointment, rather, it depends

upon various other circumstances.

14. Re-asserting the fact that the petitioner is not

possessing the requisite qualification for the post of

Forest Guard, it has been pleaded by the respondents-

State that request of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate grounds, for the post of Class-IV can

be considered, under the relevant provisions of the

policy.

15. According to the respondents, the case of the

petitioner was submitted to higher authorities, but,

his case has been received back with certain queries,

in this regard. The petitioner was duly informed by the

respondents, vide letter dated 27.6.2016.

92024:HHC:6022

16. Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the

petition.

17. Petitioner has filed rejoinder by denying the

preliminary objections, as well as, asserting the fact

that R & P Rules, which were applicable at the time,

when, petitioner appeared for interview, on 2.7.2019,

will be applicable, not the new R& P Rules.

18. In addition to this, the petitioner has also

asserted the fact that he has qualified 10+2. This fact

has been asserted to claim that now, he is eligible to

be appointed as Forest Guard. Hence, a prayer has

been made to allow the petition, as prayed for.

19. Petitioner is seeking employment on

compassionate grounds, as his father died in harness,

on 20.7.2007. He has made the application

immediately and his request has been considered by

the respondents, upon which, he was called for

interview, for the post of Forest Guard, which was

held on 9.9.2008.

102024:HHC:6022

20. As per the stand taken by the respondents-

State, petitioner appeared for 'Physical Measurement',

'Physical Efficiency Test' and 'Personal Interview'. The

petitioner has qualified the abovesaid tests. These

facts have been pleaded by the respondents in para-2

of the preliminary objections of the reply.

21. In the year 2009, the respondents had

appointed five persons, against the post of Forest

Guard, on compassionate grounds, as per the

information provided to the petitioner, under the Right

to Information Act, which is annexed with the petition,

as Annexure A-4.

22. Considering the stand, as taken by the parties,

the application was moved by the petitioner,

immediately and the same was also processed by the

respondents, as this fact is depicted from the stand,

as taken in the reply, that on his application, the

petitioner was called for the interview, for the post of

Forest Guard, on compassionate ground. He appeared

for the 'Physical Measurement', 'Physical Efficiency

112024:HHC:6022

Test' and 'Personal Interview', on 2.7.2009. Thereafter,

his case was processed and submitted to the

government, for appropriate action. However, right

from 9.7.2009, when, the Conservator of Forest,

Bilaspur, H.P., has submitted the complete case of the

petitioner to the Principal (CCF), H.P., till 7.5.2013,

when, the Principal Secretary (Forest) to the

Government of Himachal Pradesh, has asked the

petitioner to provide/supply the copy of pension

payment order, nothing has been done by

respondents No. 1 and 2, for about four years.

23. The petitioner is seeking compassionate

appointment on account of death of his father. The

object of the scheme of the Government to grant

compassionate appointment, has elaborately been

discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a case

titled as, "The State of West Bengal versus

Debabrata Tiwari & ors, reported in 2023 Live Law

(SC) 175. Relevant paragraph 7.3 of the judgment is

reproduced as under:

122024:HHC:6022

"The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having

.

regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is

provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for

such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread-winner, has been

overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the

scheme of compassionate would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the

deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which

must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration."

(self emphasis supplied)

24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case reported in

Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2022

SC 2836, has directed the authorities to consider the

application for appointment on compassionate

grounds, at the earliest, but, not beyond the period of

six months, from the date of submission of such

132024:HHC:6022

completed application. Relevant Para-9 of the

judgment is reproduced, as under:

"9. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to

.

observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment

on compassionate grounds, the family a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or

policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy

prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate

grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years

together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after

such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court

which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the

lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several

years or are not considered at all as in the instant case.

If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting

142024:HHC:6022

compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of

.

frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case.

Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved."

(self emphasis supplied)

25. In this case, it is not the stand of the

respondents that petitioner has submitted the

incomplete application, as , on his application, he was

called to participate in the selection process, in which

he has successfully qualified and the matter,

complete in all respects, was submitted to the

government for appointment.

26. It is no longer res-integra that the norms

prevailing on the date of consideration of the

application, should be the basis for consideration of

claim for compassionate appointment. While holding

so, the view of this Court is being guided by the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.

Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka & others, reported

in (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 617, wherein it has

been held as under:

152024:HHC:6022

"14. This Court in SBI v. Raj Kumar while reiterating that no aspirant has a vested right to claim compassionate appointment, declared that the norms that are in force, when the application is actually considered, will be applicable.

The employer's right to modify the scheme depending on its policies was recognised in this judgment. Similarly, in MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh this Court reiterated that compassionate appointment has to be

considered in accordance with the prevalent scheme and no aspirant can claim that his case should be considered as per the scheme existing on the date of death of the government employee."

27. This view has again been reiterated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a Civil Appeal, titled as,

'The State of Himachal Pradesh & ors vs. Abhishek

Kumar', arising out of SLP (Civil), Diary No. 37920 of

2023. Relevant paragraph-8 of the judgment, is

reproduced, as under:

"8. A three judges Bench of this Court in N.C. Santhosh v. State of

Karnataka & ors. Reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 (authored by one of us), after considering various earlier judgments opined that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application

should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. The following ratio is extracted for ready reference:

"19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the abovecited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms,

prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for considerationof claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is, however, dis-entitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee."

162024:HHC:6022

28. In view of above, the material question, which

arises for consideration, before this Court, is about

the fact whether the plea, which has been taken by

the respondents, in this case, qua the fact that

meanwhile, Recruitment & Promotion Rules, changed

and the minimum qualification for appointment for

the post of Forest Guard, has been increased from

10th to 10+2, can be accepted. The answer is in

negative. If such type of plea is accepted, then the

same would amount to give premium to the

respondents for lethargic attitude, adopted by the

respondents, in dealing with the case of the

petitioner. No negligence or inaction, has been

attributed on the part of the petitioner.

29. Even otherwise, the query, which has been

raised by the Principal Secretary (Forests) to the

Govt. of H.P., vide letter dated 7.5.2023 (Annexure R-

1), has been answered by the petitioner, by

submitting the requisite documents, which were

forwarded to the Principal Secretary (CCF), Himachal

172024:HHC:6022

Pradesh, by Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur, H.P.,

vide letter dated 12.6.2013 (Annexure R-III). Even

from that date, nothing has been done by the

respondents, in the matter. Such type of attitude is

not justifiable, under the garb that compassionate

appointment is not a vested right.

30. Once, a scheme has been formulated and

application of the petitioner was considered, and he

was found eligible and was directed to participate in

the selection process, and thereafter, his case was

submitted to the government for appointment, under

the scheme, then, the respondents cannot take the

shelter that the petitioner was not possessing the

requisite qualification.

31. A vague stand has been taken in the reply that

the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, for appointment

of Forest Guard, has undergone a change to the

extent that minimum qualification, for appointment

as Forest Guard, has been enhanced to 10+2.

Admittedly, the case of the petitioner was considered,

182024:HHC:6022

prior to the time, when he was called for 'Physical

Measurement' and 'Physical Efficiency Test' and

'Personal Interview', on 2.7.2009.

32. It is also not the case of the respondents that

the petitioner has misrepresented to them, regarding

his entitlement or qualification. Thereafter, the

petitioner cannot be stated to be not pursuing his

cause diligently, as he has filed the Original

Application, before the Tribunal, in the year 2015, in

which, the respondent-State was directed to decide

the representation. The said representation was

rejected by the respondents on 22.9.2015, vide office

order (Annexure A-6), which, according to the

considered opinion of this Court, does not pass the

judicial scrutiny by this Court, as the respondents

had taken a strange plea, regarding the change of

Recruitment & Promotion Rules, whereas, a futile

attempt has been made in the office order dated

22.9.2015 (Annexure A-6) to take benefit of their own

192024:HHC:6022

wrongs, in not appointing the petitioner, when, he

was found eligible, for the appointment in question.

33. Poor petitioner, who was forced to knock the

door of the respondents, as the sole bread earner of

their family, had expired, even prayed to the

respondents to consider his case for Class-IV posts,

but till date, said request has also not been

considered by the respondents. These facts have been

highlighted by this Court, in order to demonstrate

that it has been mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in a case titled as, Sushma Gosain vs. Union

of India, reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468, that in all

claims of appointment of compassionate grounds,

there should be no delay in appointment. Relevant

para-9 of the judgment is reproduced as under:

"We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant."

202024:HHC:6022

34. If the case of the petitioner is seen in the light

of above decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the

respondents had considered the case of the petitioner,

for employment on compassionate grounds, and

according to the stand taken by the respondents, in

para-2 of the preliminary objections of the reply, the

petitioner had fulfilled the criteria, for being

appointed, against the post of Forest Guard. Para-2 of

the preliminary objections of the reply, is reproduced

as under:

"2. That the Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur called the applicant to appear in the "Physical Measurement", "Physical Efficiency

Test" and "Personal Interview" on dated 2.7.2009 and the applicant appeared in the said process and qualified the same. The complete case of the applicant was sent to Pr. CCF.H.P. by the

Conservator of Forests Bilaspur, vide his letter No. 3353 dated 9.7.2009. Accordingly, the case was moved by the Pr. CCF HP to

Govt. of Himachal Pradesh for appropriate action."

35. Even otherwise, as per Annexure A-4,

information provided to the petitioner by the Public

Information Officer-cum- CF (Policy & Law), O/o Pr.

CCF H.P. Shimla-1, five persons were appointed on

the post of Forest Guard, in the year 2009, on

compassionate grounds. Meaning thereby, the action

212024:HHC:6022

of the respondents-State is violative of Article 15 of

the Constitution of India.

36. When, in the year 2009, five persons were

appointed against the post of Forest Guard, on

compassionate grounds, and the petitioner was also

eligible for the said post, then, the respondents-State

cannot compel the petitioner to seek the appointment

against Class-IV post. This act of respondents is

clothed with arbitrariness.

37. The petitioner was forced to file OA No. 1826 of

2015, before the learned Tribunal, in which, a

direction was given to the respondents-State to

consider the representation, made by him, and

interestingly, the respondents-State had rejected the

said representation, vide office order dated

22.9.2015, in which, a strange plea has been taken

that the petitioner does not possess the requisite

qualification of 10+2, as per the requirement of latest

Recruitment & Promotion Rules, for the post of

Forest Guard. Whereas, admittedly, in the year 2009,

222024:HHC:6022

the petitioner was having requisite qualification for

being appointed as Forest Guard and the case of the

petitioner was sent to the Principal Conservator of

Forests, vide office Memo No. 3353, dated 9.7.2009.

38. At the cost of repetition, when the criteria

prevalent at the time of consideration of the

application, are to be considered by the respondents,

then, defering the matter, for indefinite period, is

nothing, but an act of the respondents, based upon

the whims & fancies of the person(s), dealing with the

matter. Such an approach is liable to curb, as the

persons like petitioner are forced to wait for years

together to get the relief.

39. So far as the stand, as taken by the

respondents-State that the policy of compassionate

appointment, as issued by the Government of H.P.,

on 7.3.2019, is applicable to the case of the

petitioner, is concerned, the said stand is not liable to

be considered, as in view of the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in N.C. Santosh's case (supra), the

232024:HHC:6022

policy, prevailing at the time of consideration of the

application, has to be applied.

40. The act of the respondents-State is not only in

violation to the settled proposition of law, as

discussed above, but, the same is also against the

policy, under which, the scheme for compassionate

appointment was framed by the respondents-State,

as the same provides financial assistance to the

members of the family of deceased employee,

immediately, consequent on the death of an earning

member of the family. Thus, the petition is liable to

be allowed.

41. Before parting with the judgment, this Court

records its deep concern about the manner, in which,

the matter was dealt with by the Officer(s)/Official(s)

of the respondents. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner was eligible for compassionate

appointment, in the year 2009, when, his application

was considered. Delay in processing the matter, even

after the petitioner qualified the 'Physical

242024:HHC:6022

Measurement', 'Physical Efficiency Test' and 'Personal

Interview', the matter has not been given the finality

by the respondents, by issuing the appointment

letter. The facts, which have been admitted in this

case, clearly demonstrate that the delay was not on

the part of the petitioner, but was attributed to the

respondents, in not implementing the scheme, for

compassionate appointment, prevalent at that time.

42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case, titled

as, 'The Chief General Manager,

Telecommunication, BSNL & ors. Vs. Vidya

Prasad', Civil Appeal No. 6019 of 2021, has

deprecated the attitude of the respondents. Relevant

portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:

"The facts are conspicuous and manifest in that the delay in entertaining the application for fair consideration in seeking

employment submitted by the respondent is indisputably attributable to the appellants and for the afore-stated reason, he has been deprived of seeking compassionate appointment, which he was otherwise entitled to under the Scheme of 1998. It is always said that delay denies justice and the present respondent became victim of the total inaction on the part of the appellants and its officials in not putting heed to the application which was submitted by the family of the deceased employee, who died while in service. The indigent family who has lost their bread winner in seeking compassionate appointment to which one of the

252024:HHC:6022

dependent was otherwise entitled to under the law because of irresponsible attitude and red tapism which is prevalent in the office of the appellants."

43. In the above legal and factual position, the

question which arises for determination, before this

Court, is whether for the arbitrary action of the

respondents, some relief, apart from the relief, which

has already been granted in the foregoing para, can

be granted to the petitioner?

44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent

decision, in case titled as, "Manoj Kumar versus

Union of India & others", reported in (2024) 3

Supreme Court Cases 563, has held that the

compensation, for the injurious consequences,

arising from the arbitrary and illegal actions, may be

awarded by the constitutional Courts. Relevant

paragraph-20 of the judgment is reproduced as

under:

"20. We are of the opinion that while the primary duty of constitutional courts remains the control of power, including setting aside of administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power. It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal

262024:HHC:6022

actions. This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures to restitute the inured is our overarching constitutional purpose. This is how we have read our constitutional text, and this is how we have built our precedents on the basis of our preambular objective to secure justice."

45. This view has again been reiterated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, "Smita

Shrivastava versus the State of Madhya Pradesh

& ors. Etc.", reported in 2024 (5) SCALE 798, and

awarded exemplary costs to the petitioner, who was

forced to run from pillar to post, to get his legitimate

right.

46. Similarly, in this case, the case of the

petitioner was submitted by Conservator of Forest(s),

Bilaspur, H.P, to the Principal (CCF), H.P., on

9.7.2009. Thereafter, his case was further submitted

to respondent No. 1 by the Principal (CCF), H.P.