Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 141 (HP)

MAYA DEVI v. STATE OF H. P.

2007-04-27

B.S.CHAUHAN

body2007
JUDGEMENT B.S. Chauhan, Member(A):- The applicant in this original application is seeking the relief of appointment of her late husband Krishan Dev as regular Patwari in the settlement Department from the year 1986-97 with the further prayer to claim all monetary benefits including gratuity, provident fund, pension etc. as admissible under law to be released to the applicant and her family members, the applicant is also claiming appointment as Clerk on compassionate grounds as per policy of the state government after the death of her husband, who died in harness. 2. Briefly stated the case of the applicant is that late Krishan Dev, the husband of the applicant was accepted Patwari Candidate for Kangra Settlement Operations on the recommendation of the D.P.C. during 1984. Thereafter as per order dated 21.6.1985 he was appointed as Casual Patwari w.e.f. 1.6.1985 on daily wage basis. He passed his Patwar examination in 1986. He was due to be appointed/regularised as regular Patwari in the year1986-87, but due to some dispute relating to preparation of seniority of the Patwaris working in Shimla and Dharamshala Settlement Divisions, the applicant was not appointed on regular basis from due date. Subsequently he died on 12.2.1991 while in government service as casual Patwari. The main grievance on the applicant is that due to non-regularization of the service of late Krishan Dev as regular Patwari for which he was due during the year 1986-87 as 88 posts of Patwaris were lying vacant in settlement department between 1987-90 the applicant and her family members could not get any monetary and other retiral benefits. Similarly appointment on compassionate ground was also not given to her as Class-Ill for which she was entitled as per policy of the state government. Feeling aggrieved by this the applicant has preferred this original application seeking appointment of late Krishan Dev as Patwari from 1986-87 and to allow all monetary benefits including appointment on class-Ill post on compassionate grounds. 3. Reply was filed by the respondent/State, in which it is admitted position that the cadre of Pawaris and Kanungos of two wings of Settlement Department had not been bifurcated. It is reflected in the reply that there was some dispute relating to preparation of seniority of the Casual Patwaris working in the department in Shimla and Kangra Settlement Divisions. 3. Reply was filed by the respondent/State, in which it is admitted position that the cadre of Pawaris and Kanungos of two wings of Settlement Department had not been bifurcated. It is reflected in the reply that there was some dispute relating to preparation of seniority of the Casual Patwaris working in the department in Shimla and Kangra Settlement Divisions. A direction was given to prepare joint seniority list of casual Patwaris, but the same could not be finalized during the lifetime of the applicants husband. As a result thereof late Krishan Dev, casual Patwari could not be appointed as Patwari on regular basis and suddenly expired on 12.12.1991. It is admitted position that due to non-regularisation of the deceased Krishan Dev as Patwari, his family members could not get in benefit like gratuity and pension etc. after his death. It is further submitted in the reply that if final seniority of Patwaris was prepared since 1982 as per direction of Revenue Department then the deceased Krishan Dev could have come in the seniority to be appointed as regular Patwari within the period of 1986-90. It is further admitted in the reply that if deceased Krishan Dev was found eligible as per joint seniority list of Patwris then he could have been adjusted against regular post and benefits like as pension, gratuity etc. could also be granted to the dependents. It is also reflected in the reply that the applicant had been offered regular appointment as Charmin on 21.1.1992 on compassionate ground because she was only middle pass at that time and could not be appointed as Clerk on the basis of educational qualification. 4. I have heard Shri R. Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.S. Parmar, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant during the course of arguments stated that the applicant has been appointed and joined as Class-IV under the policy of State Government for compassionate appointment. Therefore, he is not pressing his claim or appointment as Class-ll on compassionate ground as the applicant has already joined on Class-IV post. He argued further that as per admitted position of the stand taken in the reply that in case joint seniority list of casual Patwaris was finalized, then late Krishan Dev would have been regularized within the period between 1986-90. He argued further that as per admitted position of the stand taken in the reply that in case joint seniority list of casual Patwaris was finalized, then late Krishan Dev would have been regularized within the period between 1986-90. The learned counsel or the applicant pleaded further that the services of the applicant could not be regularized due to non finalization of the seniority of casual Patwaris on account of some internal reasons within the department which cannot be attributed to late Krishan Dav husband of the applicant who later died in service on 12.12.1991. In view of this he pleaded that the claim of the applicant for appointment as Patwari on regular basis could not materialist due to negligence of department and the applicant and her family members did not get any gratuity and family pension etc. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the applicant referred the order of this Tribunal dated 12.3.2007 passed in OA (M) 195/2005 titled wherein it has been held that since the husband of the applicant died in harness as such the same will not disentitle the applicant from claiming the relief if otherwise admissible. 6. The only controversy which remains un-settled in this case is that late Krishan Dev, husband of the applicant who was working as casual Patwari since 1985-87. It is admitted position in the reply that if joint seniority list of casual Patwaris had been prepared well in time, then he would have been eligible for regular apppintment between 1986 to 1990. The seniority list could not be finalized apparently due to the reasons which cannot be attributed to late Krishan Dev as he had no role in such finalization of seniority. It is accepted position that the joint seniority list could not be finalized due to some internal reasons within the department. As a result the applicants husband could not be regularised till his death i.e. on 12.12.1991. It is clear from the pleadings that if the seniority list of casual Patwaris had been finalized the applicants husband would have been appointed as regular Patwari in that event and applicant as well as his other legal representatives after his death would have been eligible for grant of financial benefits as admissible to them under the rules. It is clear from the pleadings that if the seniority list of casual Patwaris had been finalized the applicants husband would have been appointed as regular Patwari in that event and applicant as well as his other legal representatives after his death would have been eligible for grant of financial benefits as admissible to them under the rules. Keeping in view the admitted position in the reply that if the seniority list had been finalized in that event late Krishan Dev was eligible to be appointed on regular basis, there is sufficient ground for the department to re-consider his case at this stage. Accordingly respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicants late husband on the basis of his position in the seniority list as Casual Patwari at par with similar situated cases and further to consider his case for appointment from 1986 onwards if he is found eligible for regular appointment under the rules. It is further directed that in case he is found eligible he be considered for appointment on regular basis in accordance with the rules applicable to such regular appointment as Patwari, the applicant and other legal representatives of late Krishan Dev will be entitled to all such consequential financial benefits as may be admissible under law and the rules. 7. The original application is disposed of in terms of above with no order as to costs.