Uttarakhand High Court
Harendra Tomar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 29 April, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1648 of 2016
Harendra Tomar ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Alok Mehra, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
1. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.07.2016
passed by respondent no.4 annexure no.17 to the writ petition
whereby claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment
has been rejected and further a mandamus commanding the
respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the suitable post
in the office of respondent no.4 on compassionate ground under dying
in harness policy of the cooperative society.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner's mother Smt.
Mahendri Devi was posted in regular establishment on class IV post.
4. It is a fact that she also obtained this appointment on
compassionate ground when her husband died on 06.03.1997.
Unfortunately, mother of the petitioner also expired on 17.03.2006
leaving behind the sole legal heir i.e. petitioner and an unmarried
sister, who subsequently got married.
5. Since at the time of death of his mother, petitioner was 16 years
of age, he could not move an application for compassionate
appointment to respondent no.4. But later on when he attained 18
years, he immediately moved an application on 20.11.2008 to
respondent no.4 for compassionate appointment in place of his
deceased mother Smt. Mahendri Devi. The said application of the
petitioner remained undecided constraining the petitioner to move this
Court by filing Writ Petition No.1275 of 2016, which unfortunately
dismissed as infructuous as the application moved by the petitioner for
compassionate appointment was already rejected by order dated
15.07.2016.
6. Petitioner then challenged the order dated 15.07.2016 in the
present writ petition. The main ground, which was taken note of by the
respondents while filing the counter affidavit is that the writ petition
was not maintainable as the respondents is a primary cooperative
society and a further plea has also been taken that the application dated
20.11.2008 was never filed as it is not in the record of the respondents
Cooperative Society and the application, which was in the record of
the respondents-Cooperative Society, is dated 30.05.2016 which was
filed after ten years of death of his mother by the petitioner.
7. The writ petition was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 21.03.2017 whereagainst a Special Appeal
No.122 of 2017 was filed by the Cooperative Society which was
allowed on 23.04.2019 and the order dated 21.03.2017 passed by
leaned Single Judge was quashed; the matter was remanded back to
learned Single Judge. Hence, again writ petition is before this Court.
8. From the perusal of the judgment and order dated 23.04.2019
passed in Special Appeal No.122 of 2017 it is reflected that the matter
was remanded only for the reason that the question could not be delved
upon by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as to whether writ petition
was maintainable before this Court or not.
9. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties without
delving into the said issue, which was relegated back to this Court, this
Court is of the opinion that since there is a policy with the respondents
Cooperative Society wherein compassionate appointments are given to
the dependents of the employees of the Cooperative Society, the end of
justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to move a detail
representation, ventilating his grievances to respondent no.4 and
respondent no.4 will decide that representation within a stipulated
period, as fixed by this Court.
10. To this preposition, there is no opposition from the side of
respondents Cooperative Society and the State as well.
11. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of finally
and it is provided that petitioner may move a detail representation
ventilating his grievances for compassionate appointment to
respondent no.4 within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order and respondent no.4 in its turn shall
decide the said representation by a reasoned and speaking order within
a period of six weeks from its receipt keeping in view the pathetic
condition of the petitioner as both the parents, who were employees of
Cooperative Society, had expired while still in service.
12. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
29.04.2024
Arti
