KALA SAROJ Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In brief the case of the applicant is that the applicant got a compassionate appointment on 17.7.1998 (Annexure -A/5) in place of her father Shri Rama Nand, who was retired on medical grounds on 30.6.1998. Shortly after appointment of the applicant, a complaint was made wherein it was alleged that the applicant was married to Shri Ramesh Kumar on April 29, 1998 and her brother Shri Lokinder is working in Forest Department. A show Cause notice was issued to the applicant on August 4, 1998 (Annexure -A/6) which was replied by the applicant denying the allegations. She was placed under suspension thereafter on 31.8.2000 which too was revoked on October 17, 2000 on her representation. A charge Sheet was issued on October 17, 2000 (Ann -10), The services of the applicant were done away with on December 20, 2001 (AnnrA/16) under the provisions of Rule 5 (i) CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The contentions o the applicant are that the complainant Shri Dushyant Kumar, who was listed witness was the material witness and he was not examined. The unlisted witness S.D.M. (Rural) Shri D.D. Sharma was summoned and examined. Inquiry was not held as per the procedures contained in Rule -14(15) and 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As such violation of mandatory provisions of the rules and principle of natural justice have resulted in grave prejudice to the applicant.

(2.) On the other hand the case of the respondent department is that the impugned termination has been passed in accordance with the law. The learned Additional Advocate General in support of her case has cited case law reported in 1994 92) SLR 677 titled as Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, in which the Honble Apex Court has held that the only ground which justified compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the family of the deceased. In another case reported in 1995 (8) SLR 57 titled as Daya Kaur vs. Haryana State Electricity Board, the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed to consider the case of the petitioner after observing that the son of the petitioner has legitimate right to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. In case of 1997 (5) SCC 301 titled as State of HP. vs. Jafli devi the Honble Apex Court has held that where a son of the deceased employee was already in Govt. Service, the another son of the deceased employee cannot be given appointment.

(3.) The above judgments do not help the case of the respondents in as such they are prior to giving of appointments. In the present case admittedly the father of the applicant has categorically stated that his one son is already in job but living separately and does not care or dependants/family members. It was in face of these disclosure of true facts that the respondent department after due deliberation gave appointment to the applicant. Therefore, principle of estopple come into play against the impugned action of respondents.