Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 784 (HP)

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-11-02

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2012
Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. By means of the present writ petition, following relief has been claimed: “a) Direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds.” 2. Admittedly, the deceased father of the petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant in the office of Block Medical Officer, Sundernagar at Rohanda in District Mandi. He died in harness on 27.7.2003, after rendering 31 years 2 months and 27 days service with the respondents. The petitioner, a dependent son, made an application in the month of December, 2003, accompanied by requisite documents, for appointment on compassionate ground. The same was forwarded by the Block Medical Officer to the 3rd respondent vide letter No.HFW-Rohanda (Estt)(PF)/2003-672 dated 12.12.2003. The 3rd respondent, in turn, forwarded the case of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent vide letter No. DH-SWC-NI(1)KH(4)/320/2003 dated 15.3.2004. The grouse of the petitioner is that the similarly situated persons, whose particulars find mention in para 3 of the writ petition, have been appointed on compassionate ground, however, he has been discriminated being not appointed so far. 3. In reply to the writ petition, the only stand taken by the respondents is that appointment on compassionate ground can only be made where the family of the deceased government servant is left in indigent circumstances, requiring immediate financial assistance. Also that if the appointment on compassionate ground is given without following any criteria, it may amount to render the government employment hereditary. According to the respondents, the case of the petitioner was examined and the same being not covered under the income/indigence criteria applicable to such like cases, stands rejected in consultation with the advisory department. 4. Having gone through the record and the contentions raised on both sides, the stand taken by the respondents in reply to the writ petition that in the policy being followed by the respondent-State in the matter of making appointment on compassionate ground no criteria of income/indigence is prescribed, is not at all substantiated on record from any tangible material. Mere assertion to this effect in the reply cannot be believed as gospel truth to deny the claim as laid by the petitioner in this writ petition. Mere assertion to this effect in the reply cannot be believed as gospel truth to deny the claim as laid by the petitioner in this writ petition. If the respondents while considering the application of the petitioners have taken the income of the family from pension or other retiral benefits, they are not justified to reject the petitioner’s calm on the basis thereof, because at this stage it is well settled at this stage that income of a family from retiral benefits including the family pension which would have otherwise been paid to the deceased employee on retirement or to his dependants in the event of his death cannot be taken into consideration while considering an application for appointment on compassionate ground. It has been held so by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Phoolwati versus Union of India and others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 469, which reads as follows: “3. This Court issued a notice on 23-10-90 and also directed that pending decision of this application she be permitted to continue her stay with her sons in the said quarter. The State has filed an affidavit stating that the appellant received an amount of Rs.21,700/- as DCR Gratuity. She also received CGE Insurance amounting to Rs.10,926/- and GPF amounting to Rs.1717/- of her deceased husband. She is also getting a Family Pension of Rs.390/- per month, and as such, she cannot continue to stay in the quarter. This Court repeatedly requested the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India to consider the provisions that when an employee dies in harness, one of his legal representatives will be provided with an employment on compassionate ground. In spite of time being given repeatedly by this Court to consider this aspect of the matter and to take necessary instructions from Union of India, the counsel states before this Court that he has been instructed by the Government of India that it is not possible to provide her second son with an employment in the said press where her husband was previously employed. In a similar case, Smt. Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1976 this Court has held as under (at page 1977 of AIR):- “It can be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. In a similar case, Smt. Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1976 this Court has held as under (at page 1977 of AIR):- “It can be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” After the observations hereinabove, the Apex Court has concluded as under: “Accordingly, we direct Union of India to take immediate steps for employing the second son of the appellant in a suitable post commensurate with his educational qualification within a period of one month from the date of this order. The appellant shall be permitted to stay in the said quarter where she is at present residing with the members of her family. The appellant will, however, withdraw her application filed before the Tribunal. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no orders as to costs.” 5. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar versus State Bank of India and others 2007 (2) Shimla Law Cases 449, having similar facts and circumstances has also held as under: “8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected in a most arbitrary manner. The Annexure R-2, dated 12.10.2000 is not a speaking order. The reasons assigned in the reply are not sufficient to deny the petitioner’s compassionate appointment after the death of his father in the year 1999. The Bank has wrongly taken into consideration while refusing the compassionate appointment to the petitioner the retiral benefits available to the mother of the petitioner as well as the amount deposited by way of Special Term Deposit Receipt and meager pension of Rs, 3,064/-“ 6. The legal position discussed hereinabove, makes it crystal clear that the petitioner ought to have been given appointment on compassionate ground and his case should have not been rejected on flimsy grounds. 7. There is no reply to the instances of similarly situated persons quoted in para 3 of the writ petition. The legal position discussed hereinabove, makes it crystal clear that the petitioner ought to have been given appointment on compassionate ground and his case should have not been rejected on flimsy grounds. 7. There is no reply to the instances of similarly situated persons quoted in para 3 of the writ petition. The instances so given pertain to the persons appointed on compassionate ground, whose father/mother had died after the death of the father of the petitioner. The silence on the part of the respondents itself speaks in plenty about their callous approach in the matter and discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner. 8. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, this petition succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the observations in this judgment hereinabove, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. However, in view of the submissions, persuasive in nature, made by the learned Additional Advocate General, there is no order as to costs. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.