Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1224 (HP)

Gehru Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-09-02

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 9th December, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 219 of 2009, titled Gehru Ram versus the State of H.P. & others and CWP No. 1339 of 2009, titled Ghanshayam versus The State of H.P. & others, for short ‘the impugned judgment’. 2. Gehru Ram, appellant has questioned the impugned judgment, by the medium of LPAs, in hand, on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeals. 3. Ghanshayam has not questioned the impugned judgment, but has accepted the same and participated in the inquiry proceedings before the SDO (Civil), in terms of the impugned judgment, which has gone against him. He has questioned the same by the medium of CWP No. 7292 of 2011, titled Shri Shanshyam versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 4. In the given circumstances, this judgment will govern both the appeals and the writ petition, in hand. 5. It is necessary to give brief facts of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the LPAs and the writ petition, in hand. 6. The Himalayan National Park, Shamshi, invited applications for appointment of Forest Guards. Selection process was taken to its logical end. Gehru Ram figured at Sr. No. 11 in the general category and at Sr. No. 1 in the IRDP category. 7. Ghanshayam figured at Sr. No. 12 in the main list, i.e. general category list and at Sr. No. 2 at Sr. No. in the IRDP category. 8. Gehru Ram was appointed, constraining Ghanshayam to make various complaints on the ground that IRDP certificate issued in favour of the father of Gehru Ram, was false and he was not belonging to the IRDP category. 9. Ghanshayam had also invoked the jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, by the medium of Original Application No. 2457 of 2008, which was transferred to this Court and diarized as CWP (T) No. 78 of 2008 and came to be disposed of by commanding the concerned Authority to consider and decide the representation of Ghanshyam, in accordance with law. 10. Thereafter, the SDO (Civil) conducted inquiry in the matter and reported that Gehru Ram was not belonging to the IRDP category and the family of ‘Below Poverty Line’ category. 10. Thereafter, the SDO (Civil) conducted inquiry in the matter and reported that Gehru Ram was not belonging to the IRDP category and the family of ‘Below Poverty Line’ category. His services were terminated on the said ground, constraining him to file CWP No. 219 of 2009, whereby he sought quashment of the termination order. 11. In the meantime, Ghanshyam reported for joining, but he was not allowed to join on the ground that CWP No. 219 of 2009 filed by Gehru Ram was pending before this Court, constraining him to file a writ petition. 12. The Writ Court after examining the pleadings and the law applicable held that Gehru Ram did not belong to an IRDP family, the termination was legal one and directed the concerned SDO (Civil) to inquire as to whether Ghanshayam belongs to an IRDP family. It is apt to reproduce para-6 of the impugned judgment herein: “(i) That Gehru Ram did not belong to IRDP family and was not entitled to apply for the post against such category and therefore, his termination is not legal; (ii) that the SDO (Civil) concerned shall inquire into the allegations leveled against petitioner Ghanshayam as to hether he belongs to an IRDP family or not. He shall give an opportunity to both Gehru Ram and Ghanshayam to put forth their case and shall decide whether Ghanshayam actually belongs to an IRDP family; (iii) the SDO (Civil) is directed to conduct and complete this inquiry latest by 30th December, 2010. In case, it is found that Ghanshayam does not belong to an IRDP family then his petition shall be deemed to be dismissed; (iv) In case, the SDO (Civil) comes to the conclusion that Ghanshyam belongs to an IRDP family then the State within two months thereafter shall issue a letter of appointment in favour of Ghanshayam.” 13. At the cost of the repetition, one Gehru Ram questioned the impugned judgment, so far as it relates to him. Thus, the only question to be determined in these appeals is whether-Gehru Ram was belonging to the IRDP category i.e. ‘Below Poverty Line’ family? 14. Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kasol appeared before this Court on 29th August, 2011, in terms of the order dated 2nd August, 2011 and prayed for time to examine the case and to submit report. Thus, the only question to be determined in these appeals is whether-Gehru Ram was belonging to the IRDP category i.e. ‘Below Poverty Line’ family? 14. Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kasol appeared before this Court on 29th August, 2011, in terms of the order dated 2nd August, 2011 and prayed for time to examine the case and to submit report. On 19th September, 2011, he appeared before this Court and placed report on the file, disclosing therein the parameter for issuing certificate in favour of the person who belongs to the IRDP category or ‘Below Poverty Line’ family. 15. The Court after examining the said report and hearing the parties held that appellant Gehru Ram belonged to the family of the category of ‘Below Poverty Line’, i.e. ‘IRDP’ category. Ghanshyam was arrayed as party respondent in both the appeals. It is apt to reproduce the order dated 19th September, 2011, herein: “19.09.2011 : Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl, A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents/State. Shri Duni Chand, Panchayat Secretary and the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Kasol are present. They have placed on record the report in terms of order dated 29.8.2011. As per the report, out of 34-04-00 bighas of land only 10-13-00 bighas is cultivable. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Addl. Advocate General has also placed a letter dated 29.1.2007 issued by the Director, Village Development Department showing the guidelines with respect to the persons who fall under the BPL category and according to those guidelines and going by the report, the appellant falls within the family of Below Poverty Line. Shri Ghanshyam is impleaded as a party respondent in LPA No. 20/2011. The appellant will take notice dasti to the said respondent returnable for 110 110th th October, 2011. Steps for the service be taken within two days positively. The presence of the Secretary and the Pradhan is dispensed with.” Sd/-” 16. Ghanshyam appeared and both the appeals were admitted on 5th December, 2012. He has not questioned the order dated 19th September, 2011. Thus, it has attained finality. 17. Ghanshyam has accepted the impugned judgment and the inquiry proceedings before SDO (Civil) has gone against him, as discussed hereinabove. 18. Having said so, both the appeals merit to be allowed and are accordingly allowed with all consequential benefits. He has not questioned the order dated 19th September, 2011. Thus, it has attained finality. 17. Ghanshyam has accepted the impugned judgment and the inquiry proceedings before SDO (Civil) has gone against him, as discussed hereinabove. 18. Having said so, both the appeals merit to be allowed and are accordingly allowed with all consequential benefits. The impugned judgment so far as it relates to CWP No. 219 of 2009 is set aside and termination order is quashed. Writ Petition No. 219 of 2009 is allowed and the impugned judgment so far it relates to Writ Petition No. 1339 of 2009 is maintained. 19. In view of the above, Writ Petition No. 7292 of 2011 is also dismissed. 20. A copy of this judgment be placed on each of the files.