Partly allowed

Gehru Ram v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Dec 2010CWP/219/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two writ petitions regarding appointments of Forest Guards. The court held the primary petitioner ineligible due to property holding underlying an incorrect IRDP certificate and directed an inquiry into the eligibility of the second petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Termination of petitioner 1 upheld; inquiry directed into petitioner 2's eligibility with appointment contingent on findings.

Gehru Ram Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 219 of 2009 and CWP No. 1339 of 2009

¶3

Date of decision: 09.12.2010.

¶4

CWP No. 219 of 2009 Gehru Ram. … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P and others …Respondents. CWP No. 1339 of 2009 Ghanshayam. … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P and others …Respondents.

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No. In CWP No. 219 of 2009: For the petitioner: Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. In CWP No. 1339 of 2009: For the petitioner: Mr. Devender Sharma vice Mr. C.N.Singh, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 to 5: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. For the respondent No.6: Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate.

¶8

Deepak Gupta, J. (oral)

¶9

These two petitions are being disposed of by a common order since common question of law and facts are involved.

¶10

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

¶11

applications were invited by the Himalayan National Park,

¶12

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.

¶13

¶14

Shamshi, for appointment of Forest Guards. In the main list, Gehru Ram, petitioner in CWP No. 219 of 2009, was shown at Sr. No. 11 of the general category but he was at Sr. No.1 in the IRDP category. Ghanshayam, petitioner in CWP No.1339 of 2009, was shown at Sr.No.12 of the main list and as per general IRDP category he fall at Sr. No.2.

¶15

Ghanshayam made various complaints alleging

¶16

that the IRDP certificate issued in favour of Shri Dine Ram, father of Gehru Ram, showing him to belong an IRDP family was falls and incorrect. A petition was also filed in this regard before the erstwhile H.P.State Administrative Tribunal, which was transferred to this Court and the authorities were directed to decide the representation. Thereafter, the SDO (Civil) conducted an inquiry in the matter. Notice was issued to Dine Ram and Dine Ram appeared before the SDO (Civil) on 16.11.2007 and made a statement that he is owner of 44-15 bighas of land in Phati Sosan, out of which 35 bighas land is Banjar and out of the remaining land 7 bighas is mortgaged with Kangra Central Coop. Bank, Manikaran for repayment of the loan taken for purchase of Truck No. HP-34-3715. The Sub Divisional Officer held that since Dine Ram was owning 44-15 bighas of land out of which about 35 bighas is cultivable and also because he is owner of the truck his name could not have been included in the list of IRDP family. Thereafter,

¶17

¶18

on this basis it appears that the services of Shri Gehru Ram were terminated on the ground that he had furnished a false certificate. Gehru Ram filed CWP No.219 of 2009. Shri Ghanshayam submitted his joining report to the Conservator of Forests, National Park, Shamshi but he refused to accept his joining report on the ground that the petition against Gehru Ram was pending and therefore, Ghanshayam filed CWP No. 1339 of 2009. It would be pertinent to mention that Gehru Ram in reply to the petition filed by Ghanshayam has also alleged that even Ghanshayam does not belong to an IRDP family since his grand mother and father own more than 30 bighas of land.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have gone through the record.

¶20

The case now being set up by Gehru Ram is that the truck was not owned by his father Dine Ram but by his uncle and an affidavit in this behalf has also been filed. On perusal of these documents it is more than apparent that the loan was taken by Dine Ram, Yash Pal and Tehal Singh. Therefore, all three must be had to be owners of the truck. Therefore, Dine Ram is owner of at least 1/3^rd of the truck. He, in addition thereto also owns 45 bighas of land. The SDO(Civil) was right in holding that a person having so much landed property and also 1/3^rd share of a truck could not be considered to belong to an IRDP family. In case, Gehru Ram does not belong to the IRDP family then Ghanshayam being next in line

¶21

¶22

would have a right to be appointed against the said post. One cannot loose sight of the fact that Ghanshayam has come to the Court twice and it is on his asking that inquiry was conducted into the eligibility of Gehru Ram. Therefore, now he cannot be denied the post of Forest Guard only on the ground that it has to be re-advertised.

¶23

Having held so, I cannot also ignore the allegation levelled by Gehru Ram in his reply that even Ghanshayam does not belong to an IRDP family. Therefore, both the petitions are disposed of in the following terms:-

¶24

(i) that Gehru Ram did not belong to IRDP family and was not entitled to apply for the post against such category and therefore, his termination is not illegal;

¶25

(ii) that the SDO(Civil) concerned shall inquire into the allegations levelled against petitioner Ghanshayam as to whether he belongs to an IRDP family or not. He shall give an opportunity to both Gehru Ram and Ghanshayam to put forth their case and shall decide whether Ghanshayam actually belongs to an IRDP family;

¶26

(iii) the SDO(Civil) is directed to conduct and complete this inquiry latest by 30^th December, 2010. In case, it is found that Ghanshayam does not belong to an IRDP family then his petition shall be deemed to be dismissed;

¶27

¶28

(iv) In case, the SDO(Civil) comes to the conclusion that Ghanshayam belongs to an IRDP family then the State within two months thereafter shall issue a letter of appointment in favour of Ghanshayam.

¶29

Both the petitions are disposed of

¶30

accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶31

9^th December, 2010 ™

¶32

( Deepak Gupta ) Judge.

Gehru Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gehru Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kansh Raj Vs Gram Panchayat Pahloo

Hukam Dev Vs Chander Parkash

Saran Dass Vs State

H.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Vs United India Insurance Company

Ghanshayam Vs State

Bisambhari Vs Kashmira Devi