BABU RAM Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dtd. 11/8/2022, (Annexure P3), whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to offer him appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father, came to be rejected on the ground that income of the family of the petitioner exceeds the income limit prescribed in the policy for appointment framed by the Government of the Himachal Pradesh applicable in the relevant year, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and direct respondents to offer him appointment on account of compassionate ground.

(2.) Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed reply. Though, opportunity was granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder, but the same was not availed.

(3.) Precisely, the undisputed facts, which emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the parties, are that late father of the petitioner, while serving as regular Beldar in HPPWD, Division Nahan, died in harness on 17/8/2010 and thereafter, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in year 2013. However, department after having considered the case of the petitioner in terms of policy framed in year 2013, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that annual income of the family at the time of death of the father of the petitioner was more than prescribed limit. Since income of the family of the petitioner at the time of death of his father was Rs.1,10,000.00 and income criteria fixed for appointment in the year 2013 was Rs.75,000.00, case of the petitioner was rejected. Interestingly, the petitioner never laid challenge to order dtd. 12/2/2015 and thereafter, he again filed an application on 7/3/2019, thereby making request for compassionate appointment, however, same also came to be rejected vide order dtd. 16/3/2021 on the same ground that income of the family of the deceased employee was more than prescribed limit. Even aforesaid order dtd. 27/7/2021 was not laid challenge. Again vide application dtd. 11/3/2020, petitioner made request to department to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds being ward of deceased Sh. Mansa Ram, who admittedly died in harness on 17/8/2010. Aforesaid prayer again came to be rejected vide order dtd. 6/8/2022 (Annexure P3) on the ground that annual income of the family of the deceased employee was more than the prescribed limit.