Himachal Pradesh High Court
WRIT PETITION 9477 of 2008 on 4 March 1994
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA.
CWP (T) No. 9477 of 2008.
Decided on: 25.11.2009.
Mohinder Kumar Sharma.
…Petitioner.
versus
State of H.P. and another.
…Respondents.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General.
Petitioner’s father died in harness on 28.1.1990, while he was working as Senior Assistant. The petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) on compassionate grounds on 20.9.1993. However, the case of the petitioner was considered for appointment to the post of Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800. He joined his duties as Clerk on 4.3.1994 in Rajgarh Division. He made various representations to Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2-
appoint him as Junior Engineer (Civil) on compassionate grounds. However, the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected on 29.5.2003.
Ms. Ranjana Parmar has vehemently argued that similarly situate persons have been appointed to the post of Junior Engineers. She then contended that his client was fully eligible and qualified for the appointment to the post of Junior Engineer.
Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that once the petitioner has joined as clerk, he is estopped from seeking appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.
Petitioner’s father, as noticed above, has died in harness on 28.3.1990. The petitioner was appointed as clerk and he joined his duties on 4.3.1994 though he has passed three years Diploma in Civil Engineering in the month of May, 1993. The appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be sought as a matter of right. It is an exception to general Rule. However, Ms. Ranjana Parmar has drawn the attention of the Court to ground B of the petition, whereby names of six persons though were similarly situate were offered appointment as Junior Engineers on compassionate grounds. This fact has not been denied in the reply filed by the Department. The only explanation given by the Department qua these candidates is that their appointment was approved by the State Government. The case of the petitioner was also recommended as per the contents of the reply on 17.12.2002. The petitioner is similarly situate vis-à-vis the persons who have been appointed as Junior Engineers on compassionate grounds. Thus, the petitioner has been discriminated by the respondents by denying appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner also for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) within a period of ten weeks from today on the analogy of the candidates whose details are given in ground B of the petition. Consequences to ensue.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
(R.B. Misra), ACJ.
25[th] November, 2009. (tr)
(Rajiv Sharma), J.