PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the appellant, who is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 17.08.2010 in CWP-T No.3087 of 2008 whereby though all his contentions were accepted and the action of the respondents was held to be illegal, yet instead of granting the relief as had been prayed for in the petition, the learned Single Judge directed the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- as lump sum compensation for the injury which the petitioner had suffered due to wrong action on the part of the respondents.

(2.) The case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that he was born on 17th March, 1954 and joined the Indian Army sometime in the year 1974 and was discharged on 30.09.1989. He thereafter enrolled himself with the Directorate of the Sainik Welfare as well as the Employment Exchange. His name was empanelled for being appointed for the post of Forest Guard. A requisition was issued for a large number of Forest Guards. In so far as Bilaspur District was concerned , there were forty anticipated vacancies, out of which five fell to the category of the Ex-servicemen. The petitioner admittedly retired before the private respondent No.3, who infact had retired in the year 1990 while the petitioner, as observed earlier, was discharged on 30.09.1989.

(3.) The appellant kept waiting for his appointment, but no such letter was sent to him. Then ultimately on 16.03.2002, he went to the Office of the Directorate of Sainik Welfare to enquire about the same and came to know that 15 vacancies had been filled by respondents No.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 had been appointed as a Forest Guard despite his being junior to the appellant. Initially, he issued a legal notice on 19.03.2002 and in response thereto, it was alleged that the appellant could not be considered for appointment since his name had not been sponsored by the Ex-servicemen Cell because he had exceeded the prescribed age of 27 years. This action of the respondents was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing writ petition wherein the following reliefs were claimed:-