HANIF UDDIN Vs. CHAIRMAN ZILA PARISHAD HAMIRPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. M. Quddnsi, J. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition with the following reliefs : " (i) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the represen tations of the petitioners. (ii) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint any one the petitioners in a suitable post on compassionate ground, (iii) issue a suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and (iv) to award the costs of the petition to the petitioners.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Vinay Khare and the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Chairman, Zila Parishad Hamirpur it has been admitted that aforesaid Sheonath Nigam had died in the year 1983 and his son had applied for appointment on compassationate ground and he was given employment against clear vacancy but no order could be passed on the representations made by the widow of the deceased and her sons who are the petitioners in the present writ petition. The reasons for such action have been mentioned to the effect that dying in harness rules were made applicable to the employees of the Zila Parishad vide Government Order No. I13-D/33-23-B/ (l)-84, dated 5th July, 1984 but no date of enforcement was specifically provide in the same. Respondent No. 1 sought clarification from the State Government and also from the Respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Hamirpur) and on the recommenda tion and advice of the Respondent; No. 2 that as no specific date of enforce ment was provided in the said Government Order it may be presumed that the same shall be made effective within one year of the date of issue of the aforesaid G. O. dated 5-7-1984 and hence accordingly Virendra Kumar Nigam only was given employment. The relevant portion of Paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit is quoted below : "5. That in reply to the contents of Paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the writ petition it is most respectfully submitted that the alleged Dying in Harness Rules were made applicable for the employees of Zila Parishad vide Government Order No. 113-D/ 332-23-B (i> 84, dated 5-7-1984 but no date of enforcement was specifically provided in the same, it is further submitted that the alleged employee Sheo Nath Nigam had also died in the year 1983 and his son has also, applied under the aforesaid Rules in which the respondent No. 1 had sought clarification from the State Government and also from the respondent No, 2 on the recommendation and advice of the respondent No. 2 that as there is no specific date of enforcement is provided with retrospective effect hence it may be presumed that the same shall be applicable within one year of the date of issuing the aforesaid Government Order dated 5-7-1984 and accordingly Virendta Kumar Nigara was given employment on the clear vacancy but no orders could be passed on the alleged representations as the deceased Chawki-dar Munna had died long before in 1980 and there was no rule to give employment to the petitioner under the aforesaid Rules. "