Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1730 (HP)

Niku Ram v. State of H. P.

2015-11-27

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Per Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. The instant petition is directed against the impugned judgment of the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, rendered in O.A. No.1475 of 2000 of 24.4.2008, whereby it declined to the petitioner herein the relief ventilated therein of Annexure A-3 being quashed and set aside. 2. The facts germane for setting at rest the controversy inter se the parties at lis are of the brother of the petitioner herein having died in harness in a road accident on 25.8.1993. Deceased Sudarshan Kumar left behind the petitioner, his mother, sister and one brother. One of the brothers of the petitioner is admittedly in Government service, yet living separately from the family. The mother of the petitioner being overage, hence she on demise in harness of Sudarshan Kumar abandoned her right to claim compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner. Also the brother of the petitioner and his sister portrayed their respective non remonstrance to the petitioner applying for his on demise in harness of his deceased brother Sudarshan Kumar being considered for appointment on compassionate basis. The application instituted by the petitioner herein for his being considered by the respondents for appointment on compassionate basis on the demise in harness of his brother Sudarshan Kumar, was affirmatively recommended by the authorities concerned who processed it, to the officers in the higher echelons of the bureaucratic hierarchy, yet respondent No.1 disconcurred with the recommendations transmitted to it by the authorities processing the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis. In sequel, Annexure A-3 manifesting the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis stood communicated by respondent No.1 to the petitioner herein. 3. In sequel, Annexure A-3 manifesting the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis stood communicated by respondent No.1 to the petitioner herein. 3. The learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had on a close application of judicial mind to the factum of the demise in harness of the brother of the petitioner having occurred on 25.8.1993, whereas with respondent No.3 having forwarded to the authority concerned his application for appointment on compassionate basis in December, 1995, which stood ultimately rejected by the competent authority in December, 1996, palpably portrayed imprompt lodging of a claim for appointment on compassionate basis by the petitioner herein before the competent authority, especially when there was non-emanation from the apposite application moved by the petitioner herein before the competent authority qua the date of its submission by him before it for garnering any inference therefrom of the petitioner having promptly on demise of his brother in harness lodged a claim for appointment on compassionate basis before it. In sequel, the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal concluded that the effect of non-disclosure therein qua its submission before the competent authority galvanized an inference of its being not promptly instituted by the petitioner before the competent authority. Consequently, with the salient underlying tenet or cannon governing appointments on compassionate basis is of providing of immediate or prompt financial succor to the surviving family of the deceased for facilitating its overcoming its financial hazards or indigence which beset it or which misfortune befell upon it on their breadwinner dying in harness, necessarily when given the non-disclosure in the apposite application instituted by the petitioner herein before the competent authority ventilating therein his claim for appointment on compassionate basis on demise in harness of his brother, qua its submission being in proximity to the demise in harness of their breadwinner, no inference, hence is drawable of his having promptly lodged his claim for the purpose aforesaid before the competent authority, as a corollary, besides imperatively, the ensuing inference therefrom, is of its having come to be impromptly lodged besides the financial distress or impoverishment with which the family of the deceased employee was beset having stood both subdued as well as mitigated. In sequel with hence the salient underlying rubric governing appointments on compassionate basis remaining un-established besides hence with the financial distress or indigence, if any, which afflicted the surviving members of the family of the deceased Sudarshan Kumar having obviously stood overcome, necessarily the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal rendered an apt conclusion of the principles governing the appointment on compassionate basis anchored upon providing immediate financial assistance to the surviving family members of the deceased by providing appointment to one of them remaining no longer in subsistence or theirs having come to be mellowed. In aftermath, the act of respondent No.3 under Annexure A-3 communicated to the petitioner herein of his claim for appointment on compassionate basis being oustable, warranting vindication by it. 4. Dehors the above, the petitioner herein even after his claim for appointment on compassionate basis having stood rejected by respondent No.3 in December, 1996 took to belatedly in 2000 impugn Annexure A-3. In sequel, the inordinate procrastination on the part of the petitioner to impugn Annexure A-3, tells upon as also bespeaks of the petitioner herein or his family on the demise in harness of deceased Sudarshan Kumar being no longer in a financially impoverished condition nor in financial distress, whereas only for alleviating the financial distress besetting the surviving members of the family on demise in harness of their deceased breadwinner by providing appointment on a compassionate basis to one of them, is the fulcrum or the essential tenet underlying the policy of the Government to provide appointment on compassionate basis. However, given the indolence on the part of the petitioner to impugn Annexure A-3, the aforesaid salient tenet governing the appointment on compassionate basis stands fortifyingly negated rather annihilated. Consequently, it was not inapt for the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to conclude that the rejection under Annexure A-3 by respondent No.3 of the claim of the petitioner herein for appointment on compassionate basis was neither suffering from any non-application of mind or mis-application of mind to the apposite rules governing the factual matrix at hand. 5. Consequently, it was not inapt for the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to conclude that the rejection under Annexure A-3 by respondent No.3 of the claim of the petitioner herein for appointment on compassionate basis was neither suffering from any non-application of mind or mis-application of mind to the apposite rules governing the factual matrix at hand. 5. Even otherwise dehors the relief, if any which has occurred in the regard aforesaid at the instance of the petitioner and its suffocating the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis, the factum of the petitioner having not proved the averment constituted in the petition of his surviving brother admittedly in Government service and living separately, hence precluding him to provide financial assistance to the petitioner besides his mother and sister, constrains this Court to infer therefrom of the brother of the applicant, who is in Government service not living separately from the petitioner, hence his being not precluded to provide financial assistance to the petitioner or to other members of his family. Consequently, the imperative inference which as a corollary ensues therefrom is of the brother of the petitioner, who is admittedly in Government service, providing financial assistance to the petitioner and other members of the family with the concomitant effect of neither the petitioner nor other members of his family being either in financial distress or in indigent circumstances for whose overcoming, it was then incumbent upon the respondents concerned to provide financial assistance to them by appointing the petitioner herein on a compassionate basis. 6. Be that as it may, the self-contradictory manifestations in the dependency certificate furnished by the petitioner before the authority concerned comprised in Annexure A-2, inasmuch as in one of the columns constituted therein the petitioner having declared the income of the dependents of the deceased to be nil, whereas in the concluding paragraph thereof his having declared the income of the dependents of the deceased to be Rs.6000/- per se bespeaks of the applicant camouflaging the real income reared by the dependents of the deceased. Apart therefrom, the imperative deduction which emerges therefrom is the petitioner besides other members of his family having an income higher than Rs.6000/- per annum. Apart therefrom, the imperative deduction which emerges therefrom is the petitioner besides other members of his family having an income higher than Rs.6000/- per annum. In sequel with active concealment by the petitioner of the real income reared by him and his other family members also generates an inference of the petitioner, as well as his other family members nursing an income which is higher than the one for theirs being, hence construed to be in a financially impoverished or in an indigent condition. 6. In trite, the reasonings afforded by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in upholding Annexure A-3 do not suffer from any perversity and are upheld. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.