Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 770 (HP)

VIRENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-08-26

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, C.J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. As short question is involved, the appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2. THIS appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 19th June, 2013, in CWP No.9953 of 2012-F. The judgment under appeal reads thus: "It is not in dispute that petitioner's brother is already in government service. Hence, respondent-authority has rightly rejected the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate basis. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s)." The grievance of the appellant is that the crucial fact that the appellant was residing separately during the relevant period and, therefore, inhibition provided in the Scheme for compassionate appointment, in particular, Clause 17.1.9, will have no application to the case of the petitioner. Instead, the petitioner was eligible to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment as per the selfsame Scheme. However, this aspect has not been noticed by the learned Single Judge at all. 3. AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, we are in agreement with the grievance of the appellant that the learned Single Judge has not considered the specific case made out in paragraphs 4(a) and 6 of the writ petition. Indeed, it is possible to say that the averments are vague and bereft of any material facts, but nevertheless the learned Single Judge was expected to deal with that contention and answer the same on its own merits. 4. TO get over the deficiency of averments in the writ petition, the petitioner has made an attempt to bring on record some official documents for the first time before this Court. Instead of analyzing those documents for the first time in appeal, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and to relegate the petitioner before the learned Single Judge for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law, with liberty to the petitioner to amend the writ petition not only to bring on record additional documents, but also to furnish relevant material facts, which would be essential for answering the matter in issue. The appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment is set aside and the parties are relegated before the learned Single Judge for reconsideration of the writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner to amend the writ petition, as aforesaid. All questions are left open.