The Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla-2 vs Sh. Lekh Ram

Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.—Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28th June, 2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 635 of 2011.

Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Letter Patent Appeal are that the respondent''s father was declared medically unfit by the competent Medical Board and was retired on 20.10.2000. He submitted an application for considering his case for appointment under kith and kin policy. The name of the respondent was duly approved by the screening committee for appointment under kith and kin policy, but due to non-approval of the same from the State of Himachal Pradesh, the appointment was not offered to the respondent. The respondent filed C.W.P. No. 635 of 2011 seeking appointment under kith and kin policy. The stand of the appellant-Corporation was that the policy has now been changed by the State Government on 15.07.2010, whereby only the widows and orphans are to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 28th June, 2011.

We have gone through the pleadings of C.W.P. No. 635 of 2011 as well as of the present Letter Patent Appeal.

Respondent''s father was retired on 20.10.2000 after being declared medically unfit by the competent Medical Board. Respondent submitted an application for considering his candidature for appointment under kith and kin policy. In fact, the same was considered and approved by the screening committee. The only ground taken by the appellant-Corporation for not offering appointment to the respondent is that there is a change in the policy dated 15.07.2010, whereby only widows and orphans are to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.

We are of the considered view that the case of the respondent was required to be considered as per the policy in vogue at the time when his father retired on 20.10.2000. There is no contemporaneous material placed on record by the appellants-Corporation that in fact the instructions dated 15.07.2010 have been adopted by the Corporation. The appellant-Corporation is a distinct legal entity and its affairs are run under the Road Transport Corporation Act. The Corporation has framed its kith and kin policy. In case it wants to follow any policy/guidelines issued by the State Government, the same is to be adopted in accordance with law. It was not necessary for the appellant-Corporation to seek approval of the State while offering appointment to the respondent under the kith and kin policy. There is no infirmity and illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.06.2011 and the same is upheld.

Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.