Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lalit Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 6 October, 2015
Author: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
Bench: Chief Justice, P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2177 of 2014
Reserved on : 03.09.2015
.
Pronounced on: 06.10.2015.
Lalit Kumar ..........Petitioner.
versus
Union of India and others ...........Respondents.
___________________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
of
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S. Rana, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner:
rt Mr.G.R. Palsara, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor
General of India, with Mr.Nipun
Sharma, Advocate.
________________________________________________________
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.
The writ petition was de-linked from the group of cases, the lead case of which was CWP No.9094 of 2013, and was taken up separately.
2. By the medium of instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ of certiorari for quashing the order, dated 1st October, 2013, Annexure P-13, made by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, and has also sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against the post of Constable on compassionate ground.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:08:52 :::HCHP...2...
3. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that father of .
the petitioner, who was serving as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, died on 22nd September, 1994, while in service. It is pleaded that as the petitioner was minor at the relevant point of time, respondent No.3 issued a letter, of dated 13th December, 1994, (Annexure P-2), to the effect that the petitioner would be considered for appointment on rt compassionate ground on his attaining the age of 18 years, if the mother of the petitioner desired so. The mother of the petitioner responded to the said letter of respondent No.3, vide letter Annexure P-3, whereby she expressed her willingness and requested the authorities to provide employment to her son on his attaining the age of majority.
4. The petitioner did his Matriculation in the year 2006 and also qualified 10+2 in the year 2009, as is evident from Annexures P-6 and P-7. The petitioner on attaining the age of majority applied to the respondents for being appointed on compassionate ground, alongwith all requisite documents, as is evident from Anenxures P-4 and P-5. It was further pleaded that certain objections were raised by the respondents from ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:08:52 :::HCHP ...3...
time to time, as would be evident from Annexure P-12.
.
Ultimately, the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay, vide order dated 1st October, 2013.
5. Respondents have filed the reply, wherein they have admitted the issuance of letter, dated 13th December, of 1994, Annexure P-2, whereby it was intimated to the mother of the petitioner rt that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment would be considered on his attaining the age of majority. It has been admitted that the petitioner, on attaining the age of majority, vide application dated 27th September, 2009, applied for compassionate appointment. The respondents, vide Annexures R-1 and R-2, asked the petitioner to remove the objections, which were ultimately removed by the petitioner on 3rd January, 2013.
Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was sent to the CISF Headquarters, New Delhi, vide letter dated 12th February, 2013, who, in turn, taken up the matter with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Dehil. However, the Ministry of Home Affiars did not accord permission since the case of the petitioner was delayed by 15 years.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:08:52 :::HCHP...4...
6. The aim and object of providing employment .
assistance on compassionate ground to the family of a deceased-employee is to provide immediate assistance in order to help the family which comes to a naught after the death of its breadwinner. We are also aware that such help of must reach to the family as early as possible or within the period as specified in the Rules/Policy framed in this regard by rt the Central Government as also the State Governments.
7. Coming to the facts of the instant case, It is the admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of the employee and the respondents informed the petitioner, vide letter dated 13th December, 1994, Anneuxre P-2, to apply for appointment on compassionate ground on his attaining the age of majority.
The petitioner, on attaining the age of majority, applied for being appointed on compassionate ground. It is further admitted case of the respondents that after receiving such application, they deputed an officer to verify the family background as also the assets/liabilities of the petitioner, who, in turn, recommended the case of the petitioner for ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:08:52 :::HCHP ...5...
compassionate employment, meaning thereby that the .
family of the petitioner was still living in destitution and needed employment assistance. Thereafter, from 27th September, 2009 till the rejection letter was issued on 1st October, 2013, for about four years, the matter of the of petitioner remained pending with the respondents, may be, because of some objections here and there. Thus, it does not rt lie in the mouth of the respondents to reject the case of the petitioner on the ground of delay, when no delay is attributable to the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner, on the assurance given by the respondents, acted promptly on his attaining the age of majority.
8. The respondents themselves deputed an officer to verify the background of the family, who, on seeing the plight of the family, recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
9. Having said so, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned letter is quashed and the respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner and pass orders afresh within a period of three months from today.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:08:52 :::HCHP...6...
10. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending .
applications, if any.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.
of
October 06, 2015 (P.S. Rana)
(Tilak) Judge
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:08:52 :::HCHP