Decided On 28Th October vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 15832 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On 28Th October vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 28 October, 2024

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

2024:HHC:10394


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                        SHIMLA

                           CWP No. 9181 of 2024 a/w
                           Ex. Petition No.238 of 2024
                           Decided on 28th October, 2024
Tarsem Singh                                  ...Petitioner
                         Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others       ...Respondents
Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1
    Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner:       Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional
                     Advocate General.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

CWP No.9181 of 2024

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter

alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

"That writ in the nature certiorari may very kindly be issued, whereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 09.07.2024, Annexure P-8, issued by the respondent No.3, being illegal and arbitrary. der to Rach 2.9 AUG 2024 (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued against the respondent department and respondents may very kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner to Class-IV post, as per his qualification and eligibility, on compassionate grounds, as per the policy prevailed in the present case, within time bound manner."

2024:HHC:10394

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this

petition are that the father of the petitioner, who was serving as

a Beldar with the Forest Department under Divisional Forest

Office Nurpur died in harness on 03.03.2018. After the death of

the father of the petitioner, his mother applied for appointment

on compassionate basis.

3. The case of the mother of the petitioner was

recommended for appointment on compassionate basis subject

to relaxation in educational qualification in view of the fact that

she was an illiterate.

4. During the pendency of the case of the mother of

the petitioner for the grant of relaxation in educational

qualification, the petitioner filed CWP No.3466 of 2023, titled as

Tarsem Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others,

which was disposed of by this Court on 09.10.2023 in the

following terms:-

"In view of the respective stand of the petitioner as well as the State, this petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the mother of the petitioner withdrawing her application for appointment on compassionate basis which was filed after the death of the father of the petitioner, then, the respondent-Department shall consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate

2024:HHC:10394

appointment in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible as per law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of."

5. In compliance thereto, the respondents have issued

office order (Annexure P-8), dated 09.07.2024, in terms

whereof, the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment on

compassionate basis has been rejected by assigning the

following reasons:-

"Whereas during 2023, Sh. Tarsem Singh, So Late Sh. Parkash Chand, (Forest Worker) R/o Village Dhar, Post Office Soldha, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra H.P. filed CWP No. 3466 of 2023, titled as Tarsem Singh Vs State of H.P., in the Hon'ble High Court of H.P., and the same was contested by the respondents by way of filing detailed reply. The said CWP came to be disposed of on 9.10.2023, with the following orders:-

"In view of the respective stand of the petitioner as well as the State, this petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the mother of the petitioner withdrawing her application for appointment on compassionate basis which was filed after the death of the father of the petitioner, then the respondent Department shall consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible as per low. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of."

Whereas after the decision of the Hon'ble Court, Smt. Indra Devi, mother of the petitioner Sh. Tarsem Singh, submitted an application dated 12.12.2023 regarding withdrawing application for

2024:HHC:10394

appointment on compassionate basis which was submitted by her after the death of her husband Sh. Parkash Chand, Forest Worker. Thereafter, Sh. Tarsem Singh, S/o Lt. Sh. Parkash Chand, Forest Worker also submitted some documents/certificates with respect to provide employment on compassionate grounds in the office of Divisional Forest Officer Nurpur and after that matter remained under correspondence between Divisional Forest Officer Nurpur, Chief Conservator of Forest Dharamshala and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), H.P. Shimla as during the course of scrutiny some shortcomings were observed and the same were to be attended by Sh. Tarsem Lal petitioner/applicant. Meanwhile Sh. Tarsem also filed Ex. Petition No. Ex. Petition No. 238/2024, in CWP No. 3466 of 2023-titled as Tarsem Singh Vs State of H.P. in the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. seeking execution of orders dated 9.10.2023, passed by the Hon'ble Court of H.P. The said Ex. Petition was lastly listed for bearing on 17.06.2024, wherein following orders were passed by the Hon'ble Court of H.P.: -

"As prayed for, learned Deputy Advocate General is granted three weeks' time to have instructions as to what has been done thereafter with regard to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis."

And Whereas, Sh. Tarsem Singh petitioner submitted all required documents/certificate on 27.06.2024 which were further submitted to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (HoFF), H.P. Shimla by Chief Conservator of Forests on 5.7.2024. As per the policy for compassionate appointment circulated vide Finance Department, letter dated 7.3.2019 and revised policy dated 1.11.2019, the Head Office level Committee examined the case of Sh. Tarsem Singh thoroughly and found that the annual income of family of the deceased employee shown as Rs.58,000/- in income certificate issued by Naib Tehsildar Kotla on

2024:HHC:10394

14.06.2024 and family pension case of Smt. Indra Devi wife of the deceased employee (proposed pension Rs. 12100+38%DA-16698) has been sent to the AGHP and after authorization of the same, the annual income of family of the deceased Sh. Parkash Chand Forest Worker will cross the maximum limit of Rs.2,50,000/- as per policy of Govt. for providing employment on compassionate ground, thus the petitioner has not been found fit by the Head Office level Committee for compassionate appointment and in view of this Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (HoFF), H.P. Shimla, vide his office memo No. Ft. HB(15)26/86 (E-III) dated 8.7.2024 issued necessary direction to Chief Conservator of Forests, Dharamshala to decide/consider the case of Sh. Tarsem Singh as per recommendation of committee by passing a well-reasoned speaking order.

Now therefore, in compliance to the judgment dated 9.10.2023, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 3466 of 2023, titled as Tarsem Singh Vs State of H.P. and judgment dated 17.6.2024, passed in Ex. Petition No. 238 of 2024 in CWP No. 3466 of 2023 and in pursuance of Pr. CCF (HoFF), H.P. Shimla's office memo No. Ft. HB (15)26/86 (E-III) dated 8.7.2024, the case of petitioner Sh. Parkash Chand, (Forest Worker) R/o Village Dhar, Post Office Soldha, Tehsil Jawali, Distt. Kangra H.P. is considered and rejected being not covered under H.P. Govt. policy regarding providing compassionate appointment notified vide office memorandum No.Fin.F(A)-16-1/2-13 dated 01.11.2019."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the pensionary income which has been taken into

consideration by the Authority for rejecting the case of the

petitioner for grant of appointment is imaginary, for the reason

2024:HHC:10394

that till date, the pension has not been released in favour of the

mother of the petitioner. He submits that when the mother of

the petitioner was found eligible for offer of appointment on

compassionate basis and the only rider was that the

Recruitment and Promotion Rules had to be relaxed qua the

educational qualification, then, now the rejection of the case of

the petitioner on the ground of the family income of the

successors-in-interest of the deceased, being in excess of the

maximum limit, is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel has

further submitted that the father of the petitioner died as far

back as in the year 2018. The family has been fighting since

then for appointment on compassionate basis. The grant of

family pension is otherwise a statutory right of the widow of the

deceased, however, for the last 6 years, even the same has not

been paid to the widow. Now, this family pension which is also

proposed, is being used as a tool to deny the appointment on

compassionate basis to the petitioner. He accordingly prays

that as the act of the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes

of law, the petition be allowed. The impugned order be set

aside and the respondents be directed to offer appointment to

2024:HHC:10394

the petitioner on compassionate basis.

7. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other

hand, has submitted that as the income of the family of the

petitioner, in terms of the income certificate issued by Naib

Tehsildar has been found to be Rs.58,000/- per annum and

further the family is to get a proposed income of Rs.16,698/-

per month, these incomes when clubbed together, exceed the

maximum limit of Rs.2,50,000/- and in terms of the policy of the

Government dealing with appointment on compassionate basis

dated 01.11.2019, as the petitioner is not eligible to be

appointed on compassionate basis, therefore, there is no

infirmity in the act of the respondents.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have also carefully gone the pleadings as well as documents

appended therewith.

9. The facts as have been mentioned by me

hereinabove are not much in dispute.

10. It is an admitted case of the parties that after the

death of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner

did apply for appointment on compassionate basis. In fact, the

2024:HHC:10394

impugned order itself spells out that the case of the mother of

the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis was

positively considered and was recommended for relaxation in

educational qualification, but in the interregnum, the petitioner

filed CWP No.3466 of 2023 and thereafter, the mother of the

petitioner withdrew her candidature and the petitioner came

forth seeking appointment on compassionate basis.

11. This Court is of the considered view that when the

case of the mother of the petitioner was favourably

recommended for appointment on compassionate basis without

any rider that the annual income of the family was exceeding

the maximum limit of Rs.2,50,000/- or whatever the maximum

limit was at the relevant time, these parameters could not have

been altered and they would had remained the same even for

the purpose of assessing the case of the petitioner for grant of

appointment on compassionate basis. Now herein, the only

parameter that was to be taken into consideration was that

because the petitioner was possessing the requisite

qualifications to be appointed on Class-IV basis, therefore, the

hurdle of educational qualification not being there, but natural

2024:HHC:10394

the petitioner was entitled to be offered appointment on

compassionate basis. The Court is making this observation for

the reason that when the Authorities found the mother of the

petitioner to be eligible for appointment on compassionate

basis, then, her son, by no stretch of imagination, could have

been found to be ineligible by applying the maximum limit of

annual income as has been done in the present petition. Not

only this, it is really surprising that despite the fact that the

father of the petitioner has died as far back as in the year 2018,

till date, family pension has not been released in favour of the

mother of the petitioner. Besides this, this family pension which

is referred to be proposed in the impugned order itself is now

being used as a tool to deny the benefit of appointment on

compassionate basis to the petitioner. This Court is of the

considered view that the income which has actually not accrued

cannot be considered for the purposes of calculating the

maximum limit and fact of the matter remains that even as of

today, the proposed pension is not being released to the

mother of the petitioner. This fact could not be disputed by

learned Additional Advocate General.

2024:HHC:10394

12. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this

writ petition is allowed. Impugned office order dated 09.07.2024

is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are

directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on

compassionate basis within the 5% quota that is meant for

appointment on compassionate basis as expeditiously as

possible. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand

disposed of.

13. In view of the order passed in CWP No.9181 of

2024, no order is required to be passed in this petition,

therefore, the same is accordingly closed.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

October 28, 2024 (Vinod)