Ajay Mohan Goel, J
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“That writ in the nature certiorari may very kindly be issued, whereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 09.07.2024, Annexure P-8, issued by
the respondent No.3, being illegal and arbitrary. der to Rach 2.9 AUG 2024 (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued against the respondent
department and respondents may very kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner to Class-IV post, as per his qualification and eligibility, on
compassionate grounds, as per the policy prevailed in the present case, within time bound manner.â€
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the father of the petitioner, who was serving as a Beldar with the Forest
Department under Divisional Forest Office Nurpur died in harness on 03.03.2018. After the death of the father of the petitioner, his mother applied for
appointment on compassionate basis.
3. The case of the mother of the petitioner was recommended for appointment on compassionate basis subject to relaxation in educational qualification
in view of the fact that she was an illiterate.
4. During the pendency of the case of the mother of the petitioner for the grant of relaxation in educational qualification, the petitioner filed CWP
No.3466 of 2023, titled as Tarsem Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which was disposed of by this Court on 09.10.2023 in the
following terms:-
“In view of the respective stand of the petitioner as well as the State, this petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the mother of the
petitioner withdrawing her application for appointment on compassionate basis which was filed after the death of the father of the petitioner, then, the
respondent-Department shall consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible as per law.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.â€
5. In compliance thereto, the respondents have issued office order (Annexure P-8), dated 09.07.2024, in terms whereof, the case of the petitioner for
grant of appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected by assigning the following reasons:-
“Whereas during 2023, Sh. Tarsem Singh, So Late Sh. Parkash Chand, (Forest Worker) R/o Village Dhar, Post Office Soldha, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra H.P. filed
CWP No. 3466 of 2023, titled as Tarsem Singh Vs State of H.P., in the Hon'ble High Court of H.P., and the same was contested by the respondents by way of filing
detailed reply. The said CWP came to be disposed of on 9.10.2023, with the following orders:-
In view of the respective stand of the petitioner as well as the State, this petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the mother of the petitioner
withdrawing her application for appointment on compassionate basis which was filed after the death of the father of the petitioner, then the respondent Department
shall consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible as per low. Pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Whereas after the decision of the Hon'ble Court, Smt. Indra Devi, mother of the petitioner Sh. Tarsem Singh, submitted an application dated 12.12.2023 regarding
withdrawing application for appointment on compassionate basis which was submitted by her after the death of her husband Sh. Parkash Chand, Forest Worker.
Thereafter, Sh. Tarsem Singh, S/o Lt. Sh. Parkash Chand, Forest Worker also submitted some documents/certificates with respect to provide employment on
compassionate grounds in the office of Divisional Forest Officer Nurpur and after that matter remained under correspondence between Divisional Forest Officer
Nurpur, Chief Conservator of Forest Dharamshala and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), H.P. Shimla as during the course of scrutiny some shortcomings
were observed and the same were to be attended by Sh. Tarsem Lal petitioner/applicant. Meanwhile Sh. Tarsem also filed Ex. Petition No. Ex. Petition No. 238/2024, in
CWP No. 3466 of 2023-titled as Tarsem Singh Vs State of H.P. in the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. seeking execution of orders dated 9.10.2023, passed by the Hon'ble
Court of H.P. The said Ex. Petition was lastly listed for bearing on 17.06.2024, wherein following orders were passed by the Hon'ble Court of H.P.: -
As prayed for, learned Deputy Advocate General is granted three weeks' time to have instructions as to what has been done thereafter with regard to the
appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis.
And Whereas, Sh. Tarsem Singh petitioner submitted all required documents/certificate on 27.06.2024 which were further submitted to Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, (HoFF), H.P. Shimla by Chief Conservator of Forests on 5.7.2024. As per the policy for compassionate appointment circulated vide Finance Department, letter
dated 7.3.2019 and revised policy dated 1.11.2019, the Head Office level Committee examined the case of Sh. Tarsem Singh thoroughly and found that the annual
income of family of the deceased employee shown as Rs.58,000/- in income certificate issued by Naib Tehsildar Kotla on 14.06.2024 and family pension case of Smt.
Indra Devi wife of the deceased employee (proposed pension Rs. 12100+38%DA-16698) has been sent to the AGHP and after authorization of the same, the annual
income of family of the deceased Sh. Parkash Chand Forest Worker will cross the maximum limit of Rs.2,50,000/- as per policy of Govt. for providing employment on
compassionate ground, thus the petitioner has not been found fit by the Head Office level Committee for compassionate appointment and in view of this Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests, (HoFF), H.P. Shimla, vide his office memo No. Ft. HB(15)26/86 (E-III) dated 8.7.2024 issued necessary direction to Chief Conservator of
Forests, Dharamshala to decide/consider the case of Sh. Tarsem Singh as per recommendation of committee by passing a well-reasoned speaking order.
Now therefore, in compliance to the judgment dated 9.10.2023, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 3466 of 2023, titled as Tarsem Singh Vs State of
H.P. and judgment dated 17.6.2024, passed in Ex. Petition No. 238 of 2024 in CWP No. 3466 of 2023 and in pursuance of Pr. CCF (HoFF), H.P. Shimla's office memo No.
Ft. HB (15)26/86 (E-III) dated 8.7.2024, the case of petitioner Sh. Parkash Chand, (Forest Worker) R/o Village Dhar, Post Office Soldha, Tehsil Jawali, Distt. Kangra H.P.
is considered and rejected being not covered under H.P. Govt. policy regarding providing compassionate appointment notified vide office memorandum No.Fin.F(A)-
16-1/2-13 dated 01.11.2019.â€
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the pensionary income which has been taken into consideration by the Authority for rejecting
the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment is imaginary, for the reason that till date, the pension has not been released in favour of the mother
of the petitioner. He submits that when the mother of the petitioner was found eligible for offer of appointment on compassionate basis and the only
rider was that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules had to be relaxed qua the educational qualification, then, now the rejection of the case of the
petitioner on the ground of the family income of the successors-in-interest of the deceased, being in excess of the maximum limit, is not sustainable in
law. Learned counsel has further submitted that the father of the petitioner died as far back as in the year 2018. The family has been fighting since
then for appointment on compassionate basis. The grant of family pension is otherwise a statutory right of the widow of the deceased, however, for
the last 6 years, even the same has not been paid to the widow. Now, this family pension which is also proposed, is being used as a tool to deny the
appointment on compassionate basis to the petitioner. He accordingly prays that as the act of the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the
petition be allowed. The impugned order be set aside and the respondents be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis.
7. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has submitted that as the income of the family of the petitioner, in terms of the income
certificate issued by Naib Tehsildar has been found to be Rs.58,000/- per annum and further the family is to get a proposed income of Rs.16,698/-per
month, these incomes when clubbed together, exceed the maximum limit of Rs.2,50,000/- and in terms of the policy of the Government dealing with
appointment on compassionate basis dated 01.11.2019, as the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed on compassionate basis, therefore, there is no
infirmity in the act of the respondents.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.
9. The facts as have been mentioned by me hereinabove are not much in dispute.
10. It is an admitted case of the parties that after the death of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner did apply for appointment on
compassionate basis. In fact, the impugned order itself spells out that the case of the mother of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis
was positively considered and was recommended for relaxation in educational qualification, but in the interregnum, the petitioner filed CWP No.3466
of 2023 and thereafter, the mother of the petitioner withdrew her candidature and the petitioner came forth seeking appointment on compassionate
basis.
11. This Court is of the considered view that when the case of the mother of the petitioner was favourably recommended for appointment on
compassionate basis without any rider that the annual income of the family was exceeding the maximum limit of Rs.2,50,000/- or whatever the
maximum limit was at the relevant time, these parameters could not have been altered and they would had remained the same even for the purpose of
assessing the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate basis. Now herein, the only parameter that was to be taken into
consideration was that because the petitioner was possessing the requisite qualifications to be appointed on Class-IV basis, therefore, the hurdle of
educational qualification not being there, but natural the petitioner was entitled to be offered appointment on compassionate basis. The Court is making
this observation for the reason that when the Authorities found the mother of the petitioner to be eligible for appointment on compassionate basis, then,
her son, by no stretch of imagination, could have been found to be ineligible by applying the maximum limit of annual income as has been done in the
present petition. Not only this, it is really surprising that despite the fact that the father of the petitioner has died as far back as in the year 2018, till
date, family pension has not been released in favour of the mother of the petitioner. Besides this, this family pension which is referred to be proposed
in the impugned order itself is now being used as a tool to deny the benefit of appointment on compassionate basis to the petitioner. This Court is of
the considered view that the income which has actually not accrued cannot be considered for the purposes of calculating the maximum limit and fact
of the matter remains that even as of today, the proposed pension is not being released to the mother of the petitioner. This fact could not be disputed
by learned Additional Advocate General.
12. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned office order dated 09.07.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside
and the respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis within the 5% quota that is meant for appointment on
compassionate basis as expeditiously as possible. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Ex. Petition No.238 of 2024
13. In view of the order passed in CWP No.9181 of 2024, no order is required to be passed in this petition, therefore, the same is accordingly closed.
