Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 28.6.2024 vs State Of H.P. Through Principal ... on 30 July, 2024
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
12024:HHC:6022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No. 7821 of 2019 Reserved on: 28.6.2024 .
Decided on: 30.7.2024 Jaswinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Forest) to the Govt. of H.P. & ors.
r ...Respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? yes ____________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate.
For the Respondents :Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl.
A.G. Virender Singh, Judge Petitioner Jaswinder Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by way of Original Application No. 3288 of 2016, seeking the following relief(s):
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS22024:HHC:6022 "(i) That the impugned order dated 22.9.2015 passed by respondent No. 3 may kindly be quashed to the extent that the claim of the applicant is rejected for the post of Forest Guard and further direction to the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of Forest Guard as per the R& P Rules and policy prevailing at the time when the applicant has applied for the appointment on compassionate ground to the post of Forest Guard.
.
(ii) That in the alternative, the case of the applicant may be considered for the appointment on compassionate grounds for the post of Class-IV in the interest of justice and fair play."
2. After abolition of the Tribunal, the said Original Application was transferred to this Court, and has been registered as CWPOA No. 7821 of 2019.
3. The above mentioned relief(s) has been sought on the ground that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 20.7.2007, who was working as Forest Worker in the respondent department. Thereafter, the petitioner, being the legal heir, has moved the application for appointment on compassionate grounds, as per policy in vogue, as Forest Guard, being fully eligible for the said post. His application was processed and he was called for interview by the respondents, on 3.9.2008. The interview was held on 9.9.2008. The petitioner appeared in the interview and qualified the 'Physical Measurement', Physical Efficiency Test' and 'Personal Interview'. Thereafter, ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 32024:HHC:6022 his complete case was sent to the Principal (CCF), H.P., by the Conservator of the Forests, Bilaspur, H.P., however, he was not appointed by the respondents.
.
4. Later on, on 7.5.2013, respondent No. 1 issued a letter to respondent No. 2, wherein, it has been mentioned that the case of the petitioner was considered in consultation with the Finance Department, for extending employment on compassionate grounds under 'died in harness' policy and the Finance Department has advised to provide the copy of PPO issued in favour of eligible dependents of the deceased government employee, alongwith calculation sheet, wherein income from pension, as well as, income from all other sources, in respect of the family, on the date of submission of application for compassionate employment by his/her dependents, should be depicted. The said letter has been annexed with the petition as Annexure A-3.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that all the relevant documents were submitted to the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 42024:HHC:6022 respondent-department, but, nothing positive had been done by the department.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner had sought .
information under the Right to Information Act. The said information was supplied vide letter dated 18.10.2014, in which, it has been depicted that the respondent department has offered appointment on compassionate grounds to, as many as, 45 candidates, out of which, 10 Forest Guards have been appointed, on compassionate grounds.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the erstwhile Tribunal, by moving Original Application No. 1826 of 2015, which was decided on 2.7.2015, directing the respondent-department to consider the representation, moved by the petitioner, sympathetically, and after affording an opportunity of being heard, to the petitioner.
8. Consequently, the petitioner made a representation, which was rejected by the respondents, on 22.9.2015, mainly, on the ground, ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 52024:HHC:6022 that case of the petitioner for appointment, as Forest Guard, is not covered under the new scheme, as the R&P Rules, for appointment as Forest Guard, have .
undergone a change, to the extent that the minimum qualification, for appointment, as Forest Guard, has been enhanced to 10+2 and the petitioner, being matriculate, is not eligible to be appointed as Forest Guard. In this regard, impugned order was issued on 22.9.2015, which has been annexed with the petition, as Anexure A-6.
9. The said action of the respondent-department has been challenged being wrong and illegal, as, the competent authority has decided the representation by holding that the case of the petitioner shall be considered for the post of Class-IV. However, according to the petitioner, case of the petitioner has not even been considered for the post of Class-IV, on compassionate grounds.
10. On all these submissions, it is the case of the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 62024:HHC:6022 judgment, passed by this Court in CWP No. 9094 of 2012, titled as, 'Surinder Kumar vs. State of H.P.'.
This case law has been relied upon by the petitioner to .
demonstrate that it has been held by this Court that the policy, prevalent at the time, when, the petitioner had applied for the post in question, shall be considered. Hence, a prayer has been made to allow the writ petition, as prayed for.
11. When, put to notice, the respondents have opposed the prayer, as made in the writ petition, by filing the reply, on the ground that the petitioner was called for 'Physical Measurement' and 'Physical Efficiency Test' and 'Personal Interview' on 2.7.2009.
The petitioner appeared in the said process and qualified the same. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was submitted to Pr. CCF, H.P. by the Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur, H.P. and then was moved to Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, for appropriate action. However, according to the respondents, Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 72024:HHC:6022 vide office letter No. FFE-A (B) 2-3/2009, dated 7.5.2013 (Annexure R-1), asked the petitioner to provide/supply the copy of Pension Payment Order, .
issued in favour of the eligible dependents of the deceased government employee(s) alongwith a calculation sheet, mentioning therein income from pension, as well as, from all other sources, in respect of the family. After receiving the documents from the petitioner, the same were submitted to the Pr. CCF, HP, by Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur, vide letter dated 12.6.2013 (Annexure R-II).
12. The fact, with regard to filing of OA No. 1826 of 2015, before the learned erstwhile Tribunal and passing of the order, dated 2.7.2015, has not been disputed. However, the respondents have taken the plea that as per latest R & P Rules, governing the recruitment of Forest Guard, the petitioner must have passed 10+2 examination or its equivalent, whereas, the petitioner is stated to be only matriculate, as such, eligible for Class-IV post, only.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS82024:HHC:6022
13. Relying upon the instructions, issued by the Finance Department, on 19.7.2014, it is the stand of the respondents-State that appointment on .
compassionate grounds, may not be claimed as a matter of right, nor, the petitioner becomes entitled automatically for appointment, rather, it depends upon various other circumstances.
14. Re-asserting the fact that the petitioner is not possessing the requisite qualification for the post of Forest Guard, it has been pleaded by the respondents-
State that request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, for the post of Class-IV can be considered, under the relevant provisions of the policy.
15. According to the respondents, the case of the petitioner was submitted to higher authorities, but, his case has been received back with certain queries, in this regard. The petitioner was duly informed by the respondents, vide letter dated 27.6.2016.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS92024:HHC:6022
16. Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.
17. Petitioner has filed rejoinder by denying the .
preliminary objections, as well as, asserting the fact that R & P Rules, which were applicable at the time, when, petitioner appeared for interview, on 2.7.2019, will be applicable, not the new R& P Rules.
18. In addition to this, the petitioner has also asserted the fact that he has qualified 10+2. This fact has been asserted to claim that now, he is eligible to be appointed as Forest Guard. Hence, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for.
19. Petitioner is seeking employment on compassionate grounds, as his father died in harness, on 20.7.2007. He has made the application immediately and his request has been considered by the respondents, upon which, he was called for interview, for the post of Forest Guard, which was held on 9.9.2008.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS102024:HHC:6022
20. As per the stand taken by the respondents-
State, petitioner appeared for 'Physical Measurement', 'Physical Efficiency Test' and 'Personal Interview'. The .
petitioner has qualified the abovesaid tests. These facts have been pleaded by the respondents in para-2 of the preliminary objections of the reply.
21. In the year 2009, the respondents had appointed five persons, against the post of Forest Guard, on compassionate grounds, as per the information provided to the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, which is annexed with the petition, as Annexure A-4.
22. Considering the stand, as taken by the parties, the application was moved by the petitioner, immediately and the same was also processed by the respondents, as this fact is depicted from the stand, as taken in the reply, that on his application, the petitioner was called for the interview, for the post of Forest Guard, on compassionate ground. He appeared for the 'Physical Measurement', 'Physical Efficiency ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 112024:HHC:6022 Test' and 'Personal Interview', on 2.7.2009. Thereafter, his case was processed and submitted to the government, for appropriate action. However, right .
from 9.7.2009, when, the Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur, H.P., has submitted the complete case of the petitioner to the Principal (CCF), H.P., till 7.5.2013, when, the Principal Secretary (Forest) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has asked the petitioner to provide/supply the copy of pension payment order, nothing has been done by respondents No. 1 and 2, for about four years.
23. The petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment on account of death of his father. The object of the scheme of the Government to grant compassionate appointment, has elaborately been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a case titled as, "The State of West Bengal versus Debabrata Tiwari & ors, reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 175. Relevant paragraph 7.3 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS122024:HHC:6022 "The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having .
regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread-winner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration."
(self emphasis supplied)
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case reported in Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2022 SC 2836, has directed the authorities to consider the application for appointment on compassionate grounds, at the earliest, but, not beyond the period of six months, from the date of submission of such ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 132024:HHC:6022 completed application. Relevant Para-9 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:
"9. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to .
observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, the family a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case.
If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 142024:HHC:6022 compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of .
frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case.
Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved."
(self emphasis supplied)
25. In this case, it is not the stand of the respondents that petitioner has submitted the incomplete application, as , on his application, he was called to participate in the selection process, in which he has successfully qualified and the matter, complete in all respects, was submitted to the government for appointment.
26. It is no longer res-integra that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka & others, reported in (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 617, wherein it has been held as under:
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS152024:HHC:6022 "14. This Court in SBI v. Raj Kumar while reiterating that no aspirant has a vested right to claim compassionate appointment, declared that the norms that are in force, when the application is actually considered, will be applicable.
The employer's right to modify the scheme depending on its policies was recognised in this judgment. Similarly, in MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh this Court reiterated that compassionate appointment has to be .
considered in accordance with the prevalent scheme and no aspirant can claim that his case should be considered as per the scheme existing on the date of death of the government employee."
27. This view has again been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a Civil Appeal, titled as, 'The State of Himachal Pradesh & ors vs. Abhishek Kumar', arising out of SLP (Civil), Diary No. 37920 of 2023. Relevant paragraph-8 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
"8. A three judges Bench of this Court in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka & ors. Reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 (authored by one of us), after considering various earlier judgments opined that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. The following ratio is extracted for ready reference:
"19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the abovecited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for considerationof claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is, however, dis-entitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee."::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS
162024:HHC:6022
28. In view of above, the material question, which arises for consideration, before this Court, is about the fact whether the plea, which has been taken by .
the respondents, in this case, qua the fact that meanwhile, Recruitment & Promotion Rules, changed and the minimum qualification for appointment for the post of Forest Guard, has been increased from 10th to 10+2, can be accepted. The answer is in negative. If such type of plea is accepted, then the same would amount to give premium to the respondents for lethargic attitude, adopted by the respondents, in dealing with the case of the petitioner. No negligence or inaction, has been attributed on the part of the petitioner.
29. Even otherwise, the query, which has been raised by the Principal Secretary (Forests) to the Govt. of H.P., vide letter dated 7.5.2023 (Annexure R-
1), has been answered by the petitioner, by submitting the requisite documents, which were forwarded to the Principal Secretary (CCF), Himachal ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 172024:HHC:6022 Pradesh, by Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur, H.P., vide letter dated 12.6.2013 (Annexure R-III). Even from that date, nothing has been done by the .
respondents, in the matter. Such type of attitude is not justifiable, under the garb that compassionate appointment is not a vested right.
30. Once, a scheme has been formulated and application of the petitioner was considered, and he was found eligible and was directed to participate in the selection process, and thereafter, his case was submitted to the government for appointment, under the scheme, then, the respondents cannot take the shelter that the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification.
31. A vague stand has been taken in the reply that the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, for appointment of Forest Guard, has undergone a change to the extent that minimum qualification, for appointment as Forest Guard, has been enhanced to 10+2.
Admittedly, the case of the petitioner was considered, ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 182024:HHC:6022 prior to the time, when he was called for 'Physical Measurement' and 'Physical Efficiency Test' and 'Personal Interview', on 2.7.2009.
.
32. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has misrepresented to them, regarding his entitlement or qualification. Thereafter, the petitioner cannot be stated to be not pursuing his cause diligently, as he has filed the Original Application, before the Tribunal, in the year 2015, in which, the respondent-State was directed to decide the representation. The said representation was rejected by the respondents on 22.9.2015, vide office order (Annexure A-6), which, according to the considered opinion of this Court, does not pass the judicial scrutiny by this Court, as the respondents had taken a strange plea, regarding the change of Recruitment & Promotion Rules, whereas, a futile attempt has been made in the office order dated 22.9.2015 (Annexure A-6) to take benefit of their own ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 192024:HHC:6022 wrongs, in not appointing the petitioner, when, he was found eligible, for the appointment in question.
33. Poor petitioner, who was forced to knock the .
door of the respondents, as the sole bread earner of their family, had expired, even prayed to the respondents to consider his case for Class-IV posts, but till date, said request has also not been considered by the respondents. These facts have been highlighted by this Court, in order to demonstrate that it has been mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468, that in all claims of appointment of compassionate grounds, there should be no delay in appointment. Relevant para-9 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant."::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS
202024:HHC:6022
34. If the case of the petitioner is seen in the light of above decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents had considered the case of the petitioner, .
for employment on compassionate grounds, and according to the stand taken by the respondents, in para-2 of the preliminary objections of the reply, the petitioner had fulfilled the criteria, for being appointed, against the post of Forest Guard. Para-2 of the preliminary objections of the reply, is reproduced as under:
"2. That the Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur called the applicant to appear in the "Physical Measurement", "Physical Efficiency Test" and "Personal Interview" on dated 2.7.2009 and the applicant appeared in the said process and qualified the same. The complete case of the applicant was sent to Pr. CCF.H.P. by the Conservator of Forests Bilaspur, vide his letter No. 3353 dated 9.7.2009. Accordingly, the case was moved by the Pr. CCF HP to Govt. of Himachal Pradesh for appropriate action."
35. Even otherwise, as per Annexure A-4, information provided to the petitioner by the Public Information Officer-cum- CF (Policy & Law), O/o Pr.
CCF H.P. Shimla-1, five persons were appointed on the post of Forest Guard, in the year 2009, on compassionate grounds. Meaning thereby, the action ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 212024:HHC:6022 of the respondents-State is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India.
36. When, in the year 2009, five persons were .
appointed against the post of Forest Guard, on compassionate grounds, and the petitioner was also eligible for the said post, then, the respondents-State cannot compel the petitioner to seek the appointment against Class-IV post. This act of respondents is clothed with arbitrariness.
37. The petitioner was forced to file OA No. 1826 of 2015, before the learned Tribunal, in which, a direction was given to the respondents-State to consider the representation, made by him, and interestingly, the respondents-State had rejected the said representation, vide office order dated 22.9.2015, in which, a strange plea has been taken that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification of 10+2, as per the requirement of latest Recruitment & Promotion Rules, for the post of Forest Guard. Whereas, admittedly, in the year 2009, ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 222024:HHC:6022 the petitioner was having requisite qualification for being appointed as Forest Guard and the case of the petitioner was sent to the Principal Conservator of .
Forests, vide office Memo No. 3353, dated 9.7.2009.
38. At the cost of repetition, when the criteria prevalent at the time of consideration of the application, are to be considered by the respondents, then, defering the matter, for indefinite period, is nothing, but an act of the respondents, based upon the whims & fancies of the person(s), dealing with the matter. Such an approach is liable to curb, as the persons like petitioner are forced to wait for years together to get the relief.
39. So far as the stand, as taken by the respondents-State that the policy of compassionate appointment, as issued by the Government of H.P., on 7.3.2019, is applicable to the case of the petitioner, is concerned, the said stand is not liable to be considered, as in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C. Santosh's case (supra), the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 232024:HHC:6022 policy, prevailing at the time of consideration of the application, has to be applied.
40. The act of the respondents-State is not only in .
violation to the settled proposition of law, as discussed above, but, the same is also against the policy, under which, the scheme for compassionate appointment was framed by the respondents-State, as the same provides financial assistance to the members of the family of deceased employee, immediately, consequent on the death of an earning member of the family. Thus, the petition is liable to be allowed.
41. Before parting with the judgment, this Court records its deep concern about the manner, in which, the matter was dealt with by the Officer(s)/Official(s) of the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment, in the year 2009, when, his application was considered. Delay in processing the matter, even after the petitioner qualified the 'Physical ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 242024:HHC:6022 Measurement', 'Physical Efficiency Test' and 'Personal Interview', the matter has not been given the finality by the respondents, by issuing the appointment .
letter. The facts, which have been admitted in this case, clearly demonstrate that the delay was not on the part of the petitioner, but was attributed to the respondents, in not implementing the scheme, for compassionate appointment, prevalent at that time.
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case, titled as, 'The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, BSNL & ors. Vs. Vidya Prasad', Civil Appeal No. 6019 of 2021, has deprecated the attitude of the respondents. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"The facts are conspicuous and manifest in that the delay in entertaining the application for fair consideration in seeking employment submitted by the respondent is indisputably attributable to the appellants and for the afore-stated reason, he has been deprived of seeking compassionate appointment, which he was otherwise entitled to under the Scheme of 1998. It is always said that delay denies justice and the present respondent became victim of the total inaction on the part of the appellants and its officials in not putting heed to the application which was submitted by the family of the deceased employee, who died while in service. The indigent family who has lost their bread winner in seeking compassionate appointment to which one of the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 252024:HHC:6022 dependent was otherwise entitled to under the law because of irresponsible attitude and red tapism which is prevalent in the office of the appellants."
43. In the above legal and factual position, the .
question which arises for determination, before this Court, is whether for the arbitrary action of the respondents, some relief, apart from the relief, which has already been granted in the foregoing para, can be granted to the petitioner?
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision, in case titled as, "Manoj Kumar versus Union of India & others", reported in (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563, has held that the compensation, for the injurious consequences, arising from the arbitrary and illegal actions, may be awarded by the constitutional Courts. Relevant paragraph-20 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"20. We are of the opinion that while the primary duty of constitutional courts remains the control of power, including setting aside of administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power. It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 262024:HHC:6022 actions. This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures to restitute the inured is our overarching constitutional purpose. This is how we have read our constitutional text, and this is how we have built our precedents on the basis of our preambular objective to secure justice."
.
45. This view has again been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, "Smita Shrivastava versus the State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. Etc.", reported in 2024 (5) SCALE 798, and awarded exemplary costs to the petitioner, who was forced to run from pillar to post, to get his legitimate right.
46. Similarly, in this case, the case of the petitioner was submitted by Conservator of Forest(s), Bilaspur, H.P, to the Principal (CCF), H.P., on 9.7.2009. Thereafter, his case was further submitted to respondent No. 1 by the Principal (CCF), H.P. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 issued letter dated 7.5.2013 (Annexure R-1), directing the petitioner to provide the copy of Pension Payment Order. These formalities too were completed and was submitted to the Principal (CCF), H.P. on 12.6.2013. As such, it is a fit case where some amount is liable to be awarded ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS 272024:HHC:6022 to the petitioner, as exemplary costs, against the respondents, which is quantified @ Rs. 2,00,000/-.
47. Considering all these facts, the present .
petition is allowed, with costs of Rs. 2,00,000/-. by quashing impugned order dated 22.9.2015 (Annexure A-6). The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner, on compassionate grounds, to the post of Forest Guard, within a period of two months, from the date of this order.
48. The respondent-State is at liberty to recover the cost, so imposed, from the Officer(s)/Official(s), who were responsible for taking deliberate, illegal and malafide actions, for denying the relief to the petitioner.
49. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
(Virender Singh) Judge 30.7.2024 Kalpana ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2024 03:53:39 :::CIS