Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 175 (HP)

Kiran Sood v. State of H. P.

2013-03-12

RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Per Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner’s husband was working as Superintendent in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat. He died on 7.8.2002 in harness. His basic pay was ‘ 9200/. Office order dated 27.9.2002 was issued by the Under Secretary (SA) to the effect that petitioner’s children shall be entitled to free education upto graduate level. In this professional courses were also included provided the child gets the admission in the course on the basis of merit. Petitioner’s son appeared in the competitive examination conducted by the Himachal Pradesh University for admission to B. Tech. course in Information Technology. He was selected and deposited the fee on 24.7.2007. Petitioner submitted an application seeking reimbursement of the expenses by claiming ! 73,435/- vide Annexure P-4. She was informed that only the tuition fee at the rate as admissible in Government institution shall be reimbursed. She was requested to furnish the details of tuition fee deposited by her in the concerned institution. Petitioner informed the Under Secretary (SA) that the tuition fee of one semester was ! 25,000/-. Thereafter, instead of releasing the amount, petitioner was requested by the Under Secretary (SA) to furnish a certificate from the concerned institution indicating whether Sh. Gaurav Sood was admitted on a paid seat or merit seat. Petitioner was also asked whether any family member of the deceased Government servant got employment on compassionate grounds. This information was also supplied by the petitioner on 7.1.2009. However, the fact of the matter is that though the petitioner supplied all the details/information as asked for by the Under Secretary (SA), till date the expenditure incurred on the education of petitioner’s son Sh. Gaurav Sood has not been reimbursed. Sh. Gaurav Sood has completed the B. Tech. course in Information Technology. 2.Mr. Ashok Sharma has vehemently argued that petitioner is entitled to get the reimbursement of the amount of tuition fee paid towards education of her son Sh. Gaurav Sood. He also argued that the case of the petitioner was squarely covered under policy framed vide Annexure R-1 dated 3rd Feb./13th March, 1972. 3.Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that since the petitioner was already in Government employment, tuition fee could not be refunded. 4.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 3.Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that since the petitioner was already in Government employment, tuition fee could not be refunded. 4.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 5.The Finance Secretary has issued office memorandum dated 3rd Feb./13th March, 1972 whereby policy has been framed for release of ex-gratia grants for facilities of Government employees, who die while in service. Clause (d) of the scheme reads as under: “(d) Free Education Facilities: - Free education facilities will be allowed to the unmarried children of all Government employees who die while in service subject to the following conditions: i. The benefit of free education shall be allowed upto Degree Courses (including Professional Courses), provided the children get admission in the said courses on merit and pass the examination held from time to time. ii. Tuition fee at the rate as admissible in Government Institutions only shall be reimbursed. iii. The benefit will be admissible from the date of death of the Government employee concerned to his children who are actually dependent upon their guardian.” 6. According to this policy, free education facilities are allowed to the unmarried children of all Government employees who die while in service and the benefit of free education is allowed upto Degree Courses, including professional courses, provided the children get admission on merit and pass the examination held from time to time. The tuition fee at the rate as admissible in Government institutions is to be reimbursed and the benefit is to be admissible from the date of death of the Government employee concerned to his children who are actually dependent upon their guardian. Petitioner’s son Sh. Gaurav Sood was dependent on his father, who died in harness. It is nowhere provided in the policy that in case of death of Government employee if the other spouse is provided employment, the concession of free education facilities will not be admissible. Petitioner was informed vide Annexure P-1 that her children will be entitled to free education facilities upto degree course, including professional courses, and the tuition fee at the rate as admissible in Government institutions was to be reimbursed. It was also stated that the children shall get this facility till they were actually dependent on their guardian. 7. Petitioner was informed vide Annexure P-1 that her children will be entitled to free education facilities upto degree course, including professional courses, and the tuition fee at the rate as admissible in Government institutions was to be reimbursed. It was also stated that the children shall get this facility till they were actually dependent on their guardian. 7. In sequel to the promise held out to her vide Annexure P-1 dated 27.9.2002, petitioner got her son admitted to B. Tech. course in Information Technology. She has spent a sum of ! two lakhs towards tuition fee. Petitioner was called upon, as noticed above, to inform whether her son was admitted on merit or not. She was also called upon to inform whether any person has sought compassionate appointment after the death of her husband. Petitioner has informed the Under Secretary (SA) that her son was admitted on merit and no family member has sought compassionate appointment after the death of Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sood. 8.Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted that the clarification was also sought from the Finance Department qua Annexure R-1 dated 3rd Feb./13th March, 1972. According to him, the matter was examined by the Finance Department and the gist of the Finance Department observation is that the “dependence” was pre-condition and since in this case, wife of the Government servant was in Government service, the benefit could not be granted. The Finance Department has read something in Clause (d), which has not been provided in O.M. dated 3rd Feb./13th March, 1972. Annexure R-1 is a benevolent provision issued vide office memorandum dated 3rd Feb./13th March, 1972. The benefit could not be denied to the petitioner only on the ground that she was in Government service. The petitioner on the basis of the promise held out to her vide Annexure P-1 has changed her position to her detriment by getting her son admitted in the B. Tech. course in Information Technology. In view of this, respondents are bound by the promise held out to the petitioner vide Annexure P-1. Respondents had been changing the stand from time to time resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. Petitioner is a widow and strictly as per Annexure R- 1 is entitled to get the reimbursement of entire tuition fee paid towards education of her son Sh. Gaurav Sood. Sh. Respondents had been changing the stand from time to time resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. Petitioner is a widow and strictly as per Annexure R- 1 is entitled to get the reimbursement of entire tuition fee paid towards education of her son Sh. Gaurav Sood. Sh. Gaurav Sood was admitted on merit basis after qualifying the written examination. He has now successfully completed the B. Tech course. Once the provision has been made to mitigate the hardship of the Government servant, who dies in harness, same should be construed liberally. Since the language of Annexure R- 1 is plain, there was no need even to seek the clarification from the Finance Department. In these matters, approach of the State should be humane and justice oriented and not hyper technical. The action of the respondents not to reimburse the entire tuition fee is arbitrary, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to reimburse a sum of ! two lakhs to the petitioner with interest @ 7% per annum within a period of four weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.