CWPOA/12550/2008 on 29 December 2012

1. State of H.P. through the Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P. Shimla.

2. The Director of Elementary Education, Shimla.

3. The Dy. Director of Elementary Education, Mandi through its Secretary Distt. Mandi.

4. The Headmaster, Govt. High School, Tikkru, Tehsil Jogindernagar, Distt. Mandi (HP).

…….. Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No

For the petitioner : Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate.with Ms.

Shreya Chauhan, Advocate

For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy.A.G. and Mr.

Vinod Thakur, Dy.A.G..

Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (oral)

Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs-

i. That the compassionate appointment may be given in favour of applicant after considering all the record qualification of the applicant circumstances and financial condition of the family.

ii. That the respondent department order to produced the record in Hon’ble Court.

iii. That the order or rejection of applicant’s compassionate appointment dated 15th June, 2004 set aside in first instance.

2. It is not in dispute that petitioner’s father was a government employee. He was serving as a Language Teacher in the Education

Department of the Government at Sr. Sec. School, Tikkru, Tehsil Jogindernagar, Distt. Mandi. Unfortunately, he died in harness on 22.3.2003. Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate basis in terms of policy framed by the State. Petitioner has placed on record certificate (Annexure A-3) showing that family falls below poverty line. However such request for appointment on compassionate basis was turned down for the reason that Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jogindernagar, Distt. Mandi issued a certificate showing income of the family of the deceased to be Rs.1,96,872/-.

3. It appears that this certificate was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate without actually investigating into the indigence of the family. He simply took into account salary payable to the father of the petitioner, prior to his death. This is evident from record produced by the State. Petitioner’s father was receiving salary @ Rs.16,356/- per month, which multiplied by 12 comes to Rs.1,96,872/-. As such, decision of the State Government as conveyed by the Dy. Director (Education), Mandi vide order dated 15.6.2004, rejecting the petitioner’s request on the ground that family is not indigent, is illegal and liable to be quashed.

4. Also this Court in Ashwani Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP(T) No. 14469/2008, in similar circumstances has quashed order of rejection of request for appointment on compassionate basis.

5. The Apex Court in Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493 has held that benefit payable under the family benefits scheme cannot in any way be equated with compassionate appointment. Retiral benefits of the deceased employee are not to be considered for the purpose of adjudicating income of the family of the deceased. In Union of India & Anr. vs. B. Kishore (S.C.), 2011 (2) Services Law Reporter 790, the Apex Court has reiterated the principles laid down for giving appointment on compassionate basis.

6. It is not the objection of the State that petitioner otherwise is not eligible or entitled to appointment on compassionate basis. As such, petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed. Respondents No.1 & 2 are directed to consider the petitioner’s application, in accordance with the scheme prevalent at the time when the same was presented by the petitioner. Decision, in accordance with law, shall positively be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.

7. I must place on record with appreciation, the assistance rendered by Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, who ably assisted the Court alongwith her senior colleague.

(Justice Sanjay Karol ), Judge. 29th December, 2011 (rana)