MAYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in this original application is seeking the relief of appointment of her late husband Krishan Dev as regular Patwari in the settlement Department from the year 1986 -97 with the further prayer to claim all monetary benefits including gratuity, provident fund, pension etc. as admissible under law to be released to the applicant and her family members, the applicant is also claiming appointment as Clerk on compassionate grounds as per policy of the state government after the death of her husband, who died in harness.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the applicant is that late Krishan Dev, the husband of the applicant was accepted Patwari Candidate for Kangra Settlement Operations on the recommendation of the D.P.C. during 1984. Thereafter as per order dated 21.6.1985 he was appointed as Casual Patwari w.e.f. 1.6.1985 on daily wage basis. He passed his Patwar examination in 1986. He was due to be appointed/regularised as regular Patwari in the year1986 -87, but due to some dispute relating to preparation of seniority of the Patwaris working in Shimla and Dharamshala Settlement Divisions, the applicant was not appointed on regular basis from due date. Subsequently he died on 12.2.1991 while in government service as casual Patwari. The main grievance on the applicant is that due to non -regularization of the service of late Krishan Dev as regular Patwari for which he was due during the year 1986 -87 as 88 posts of Patwaris were lying vacant in settlement department between 1987 -90 the applicant and her family members could not get any monetary and other retiral benefits. Similarly appointment on compassionate ground was also not given to her as Class -Ill for which she was entitled as per policy of the state government. Feeling aggrieved by this the applicant has preferred this original application seeking appointment of late Krishan Dev as Patwari from 1986 -87 and to allow all monetary benefits including appointment on class -Ill post on compassionate grounds.

(3.) Reply was filed by the respondent/State, in which it is admitted position that the cadre of Pawaris and Kanungos of two wings of Settlement Department had not been bifurcated. It is reflected in the reply that there was some dispute relating to preparation of seniority of the Casual Patwaris working in the department in Shimla and Kangra Settlement Divisions. A direction was given to prepare joint seniority list of casual Patwaris, but the same could not be finalized during the lifetime of the applicants husband. As a result thereof late Krishan Dev, casual Patwari could not be appointed as Patwari on regular basis and suddenly expired on 12.12.1991. It is admitted position that due to non -regularisation of the deceased Krishan Dev as Patwari, his family members could not get in benefit like gratuity and pension etc. after his death. It is further submitted in the reply that if final seniority of Patwaris was prepared since 1982 as per direction of Revenue Department then the deceased Krishan Dev could have come in the seniority to be appointed as regular Patwari within the period of 1986 -90. It is further admitted in the reply that if deceased Krishan Dev was found eligible as per joint seniority list of Patwris then he could have been adjusted against regular post and benefits like as pension, gratuity etc. could also be granted to the dependents. It is also reflected in the reply that the applicant had been offered regular appointment as Charmin on 21.1.1992 on compassionate ground because she was only middle pass at that time and could not be appointed as Clerk on the basis of educational qualification.