Sh. Ajay Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Justice Sanjay Karol, J.—Sh. Jiwanoo Ram, father of the present petitioner, was working as a Chowkidar in the I.P.H. Sub Division Sunni, Distt. Shimla, H.P. Unfortunately he expired in harness on 24.1.2008 leaving behind his wife, one son and two married daughters. In terms of the policy framed by the State for giving appointment on compassionate basis to wards of the deceased employees, petitioner being son of the deceased employee, approached the respondents for consideration of his case under the said policy. His application was rejected vide communicated dated 4.11.2010 (Annexure P-6) assigning the reason that the Government has taken a policy decision vide letter dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure R-III) to the effect that only those cases are to be considered for compassionate appointment where applicant is a widow or where both the parents are not alive. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner approached this Court by way of instant writ petition to which respondents have filed their response.

An identical issue cropped up for consideration before this Court in CWP No. 7652 of 2011, titled as Ms. Anju Rana vs. State of H.P. and others, which stands decided in terms of judgment dated 26.7.2012 wherein the Court after taking into account the subsequent policy decision of the Government dated 25.9.2010 has made the following observations:-

Sh. Bhagwan Singh Rana, father of the present petitioner, was working as a Central Head Teacher at Government Primary School, Garhwing, Distt. Kangra, H.P. Unfortunately he expired in harness on 21.3.2000 leaving behind his wife, one son and four daughters. In terms of the policy framed by the State for giving appointment on compassionate basis to wards of the deceased employees, petitioner being daughter of the deceased employee, approached the respondents for consideration of her case under the said policy. Her application was rejected by the Dy. Director of Elementary Education, Kangra vide communication dated 8.6.2011 only on the ground that Government has decided "that only those cases may be sent to the Govt. where applicant is a widow and cases of applicants whose both parents are not alive.

Aggrieved of the same, petitioner approached this Court by way of instant writ petition to which respondents have now filed their response clarifying that the Dy. Director of Elementary Education Kangra at Dharamshala as also the petitioner have been directed to complete all codal formalities, including furnishing of income certificate of the petitioner.

Quite apparently State has now changed its stand, and in my view correctly, keeping in view the communication dated 25.9.2010 (Annexure P-13) whereby it stands clarified that cases of widows and applicants where both the parents are not alive are to be given priority. It is not that no case of a person where either of the parents is alive is not to be considered at all. Now respondents have rightly taken a stand that petitioner''s case would be considered on its own merit after codal formalities are completed by her.

Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, learned counsel submits that petitioner shall complete all codal formalities within a period of four weeks from today. In view of the same, respondents are directed to take appropriate action within a period of three months from the date of completion of all codal formalities by the petitioner.

Regretfully this subsequent communication dated 25.9.2010 has not been placed before this Court.

Consequently the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.11.2010 (Annexure P-6) is quashed. Ms. Kamlesh Shandil, learned counsel submits that petitioner shall complete all codal formalities within a period of four weeks from today. In view of the same, respondents are directed to take appropriate action within a period of three months from the date of completion of all codal formalities by the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.