KAMAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with orders dtd. 15/10/2014, 29/10/2014 and 8/2/2021 (Annexure P-10, Annexure P- 11 and Annexure P-21), whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, came to be rejected, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein following main reliefs:

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that father of the petitioner, i.e. late Sh. Hans Raj, who was working as a Peon in the Education Department, Himachal Pradesh, died in harness on 16/12/2009. Immediately after death of his father, petitioner being fully eligible for compassionate appointment, applied for the post of clerk. The Deputy Director of Higher Education, submitted the case of the petitioner to the higher authorities on 22/5/2013. However, vide communication dtd. 18/6/2013, Joint Director sent a communication to the Deputy Director for sending the PPO alongwith calculation sheet showing the income from pension as well as from other sources in respect of the family on the date of submission of application. On 29/6/2013, petitioner submitted fresh application after removing all the objections along with PPO, Income Certificate and calculation sheet, which was further sent to the Director of Higher Education on 8/7/2013. Case of the petitioner was further sent by the Director Higher Education to Principal Secretary Education vide communication dtd. 31/7/2023 for taking final decision in the matter, which came to be rejected vide communication dtd. 15/10/2014. Since aforesaid order was not communicated to the petitioner, he again sent a detailed representation on 21/2/2017, specifically raising query from the respondents that why action till date has not been taken pursuant to communication dtd. 31/7/2013. After taking note of the aforesaid communication, the Joint Secretary, Higher Education submitted the case of the petitioner to Director and asked him to send the case back after examination. The Joint Director of Higher Education, after following the direction of this Court in CWP No.9094/2013, asked the petitioner to resubmit the entire information on new prescribed form No.(i) to (vi) and the same was submitted by the petitioner on 17/4/2017. On 27/5/2017, Director of Higher Education submitted the case of the petitioner complete in all regards, to Additional Chief Secretary for further action, however, the same was rejected on the ground that petitioner does not meet the income criteria. Since the aforesaid order was again not communicated to the petitioner, he again applied to the authorities. Director of Higher Education vide communication dtd. 22/5/2019, directed the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Una to reconsider the case of the petitioner, as per prescribed proforma along with income proforma and the check list given in the new policy dtd. 25/3/2019. In compliance to the aforesaid direction issued by the department, petitioner again submitted an application alongwith all required documents including the income certificate as required. However, vide order dtd. 8/2/2021, respondents rejected the case of the petitioner on the same ground, but even at that stage, no copy of the order was communicated to the petitioner and the same was obtained by him only on 6/7/2022, that too, under Right to Information Act. In the aforesaid background, petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.

(3.) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the present case and further canvassed by Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though respondents on three occasions considered the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, but every time, rejected the same on the same premise. Mr. Khidtta, while making this court peruse the orders dtd. 15/10/2014, 29/10/2014 and 8/2/2021 (Annexures P-10, P-11 and P-21), attempted to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that neither due opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner nor his case was considered in light of the parameters laid down in the policy in vogue at that time.