Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chander Kant vs State Of H.P. And Others on 6 August, 2021
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.6045 of 2019 .
Reserved on : 4.8.2021 Decided on : 6.8.2021 Chander Kant ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others r to ...Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes ________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr.Jaidev Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents :Mr.Ashwani Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikrant Chandel and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Dy. AGs, for the respondents.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge The predecessor-in-interest, of, the petitioner, one Tulsi Ram, died in harness on 22.10.2011. At the time of his demise, he was serving as a Patwari, at Patwar Centre Kasol, , Tehsil Bhunter and District Kullu. The writ petitioner, though, upon the demise in harness, of his predecessor-in-interest, strived for his being appointed as ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS 2 a Clerk, on a compassionate basis. However, through Annexure A-7, made on 13.11.2014, his afore strivings became rather declined by the respondents. Consequently, .
the writ petitioner is aggrieved, and, is led to institute the instant writ petition, before this Court. Through the instant petition, he seeks annulment of Annexure A-7.
2. The respondents in the reply meted to the writ petition, make dependence upon Annexure R-1. Annexure R-1 contains the relevant guidelines, for the making of appointments on a compassionate basis. Consequently, the occurrence therein, of, the relevant income criteria, of Rs. 1,25,000/-, at the relevant stage, is contended to be breached by the writ petitioner, inasmuch as, his income from all sources, exceeded the afore ceiling of income, as, carried in Annexure R-1. Obviously, on strength of the afore breach, of the apposite income criteria, the respondents validly strive to deny, to the writ petitioners, his claim for his being appointed, as a Clerk, on compassionate basis, and, as arose from the demise, in harness, of his predecessor-in-interest, one Tulsi Ram.
2. Be that as it may, the respondents for validating their action of rejecting the writ petitioner's claim, for 2 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS 3 appointment, on a compassionate basis, also make further dependence, upon Annexure R-3, wherein, a provision occurs that the benefit of appointments on a .
compassionate basis to the claimant concerned, upon occurrence of demise, of, his predecessor-in-interest, can become validly bestowed, only upon the demise in harness, of, the deceased concerned, occurring at the age of 50 years. However, since the predecessor-in-interest, of, the petitioner expired when he was 56 years old. Therefore, the respondents validly contend that the afore provision carried in Annexure R-3, rather fettering and, circumscribing the strivings, for compassionate appointment of the applicant concerned, rather comes to the forefront, (i) inasmuch as, his claim, being valid only when his predecessor-in-interest was 50 years of age, at the time of his demise in harness. Consequently, the afore also works against the writ petitioner's claim, as reiteratedly, and admittedly, at the relevant time, his predecessor-in-interest was aged 56 years.
3. Dehors above, the appointment on a compassionate basis, are, made to ensure overcomings or mitigating the immediate financial distresses, as befall 3 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS 4 upon the family of the predecessor-in-interest, of, the petitioner, and, as arise from his demise, in harness.
However, as stated (supra) since at the relevant time, the .
family of the deceased was rearing an income, sufficient and abundant, to tide over and mitigate the financial distresses, as befell upon them. Therefore, the afore mitigations of the financial distress, rather befalling the family concerned, upon the occurrence of demise of their predecessor-in-interest, does not, enable the writ petitioner, to seek any valid claim for his being appointed on a compassionate basis, as thereupon, the salutary purpose, behind purveying the facility of appointments on a compassionate basis, rather would get both scuttled and defeated.
4. Furthermore, when the application for compassionate appointment, is to be made immediately, on occurrence of demise, in harness, of his/their predecessor-in-interest, as, thereupon, it may echo, that the apposite financial hardships and financial distresses, arising from the subsisting inherited liabilities, of, the predecessor-in-interest, being redeemed, through the apposite estate or through his post retiral benefits, as 4 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS 5 became purveyed to his successors-in-interest, and, whereupon the breach, if any, of the income criteria, may become irrelevant. However, since the respondents .
contend in their reply on affidavit, furnished to the writ petition, that the application for appointment on a compassionate basis was moved after a lapse of 2-1/2 years, since the demise, of, their predecessor-in-interest.
Therefore, the observation (supra), appertaining to the financial benefits, as become bestowed upon the successor-in-interest, of, one Tulsi Ram, being sufficient and abundant, to tide over financial distresses, befalling upon them, does, acquire completest vigor.
5. Significantly also, hence when the writ petitioner has not been able to place on record any cogent material, displaying that dehors the afore post retiral benefits, being purveyed to the family, of his predecessor-in-interest, the latters' borrowings from financial institutions, would rather substract a substantial portion thereof, leaving yet his family in financial distress. Therefore, the afore ill effect of the belated motion of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, when becomes combined with the afore lack of cogent evidence, does constrain, this 5 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS 6 Court, to validate Annexure P-7.
6. As corollary, this Court finds no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The impugned .
Annexure is affirmed and maintained. All the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge
6th August, 2021
Kalpana
r to
6
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:16 :::CIS