Allowed

Sushma Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Sept 2023CWP/2555/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the State Education Department to reconsider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment for the wife of a deceased teacher. The High Court held that the husband's tenure qualified him for the scheme and observed that format deficiencies could be rectified.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2/competent authority directed to consider the case afresh for employment on compassionate grounds within four weeks.

Sushma Devi Vs State of Hp and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.2555 of 2023

¶3

Decided on: 1^st September, 2023 _________________________________________________________________ Sushma Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶4

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶5

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

¶6

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Parkash Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur & Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocates General and Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

The petitioner is wife of late Sh. Som Prakash. Her case is that late Sh. Som Prakash was working as Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) with the respondent-Education Department. He served as such w.e.f. 05.06.2006, to 31.05.2019. He died in harness in a road accident on

¶9

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶10

¶11

01.06.2019. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for

¶12

employment assistance on compassionate grounds. Her application was forwarded by the Block Elementary Education Officer Shillai, District Sirmour on 06.08.2019 to the Deputy Director, Elementary Education Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. Alleging no action by the rspondents upon her representation, the petitioner instituted the present writ petition, seeking direction to the respondents to consider her case for compassionate employment within a time bound manner.

¶13

2. Upon notice being issued, the respondents have placed on record instructions memo dated 11.08.2023, issued from the Directorate of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh. Relevant portion whereof reads as under: -

¶14

“ In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher(PAT) in this department and was working against the post of JBT in Govt. Primary School, Manal-I, Education Block Shillai District Sirmour. H.P. He has been expired on 01.06.2019 as Primary Assistant Teacher before his regularization. As per information received from the Deputy Director concerned the wife of demise Late Sh. Som Parkash applied for employment on compassionate ground 18.07.2019 in a

¶15

¶16

single paper which was sent by Block Education Officer Shillai, District Sirmour vide his letter dated 04.07.2023 to the Deputy Director of Elementary Education Sirmour at Nahan and same has been returned back. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not applied for compassionate appointment on the prescribed proforma. Moreover, the legal heirs of teachers appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher(PAT), Vidya Upask and ParaTeachers have not been included in the policy for appointment on compassionate ground, as circulated by the Government vide notification dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure P-3) and thus the case of the petitioner can not be considered by the respondent department for employment on compassionate ground.”

¶17

3. Heard. The respondents have rejected the

¶18

case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds primarily on two counts. Firstly , that the petitioner did not apply on the requisite format. She had applied only on a single paper. Second ground taken is that the petitioner’s late husband was working as PAT. Legal heirs of teachers appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT), Vidya Upasak and Para-Teachers have not been included in the policy for appointment on compassionate ground as circulated by the Government vide notification dated 07.03.2019.

¶19

¶20

3(i) Insofar as first ground is concerned, suffice to

¶21

observe that respondents could have always directed the petitioner to apply on the requisite format. This being a formal defect, can always be rectified.

¶22

3(ii) Insofar as second ground is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the policy framed by the respondents vide office memorandum dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure P-3) for providing compassionate employment to the eligible dependents of the deceased employee of the State Government. Clause-2 whereof reads as under: -

¶23

“(2) TO WHOM THE POLICY IS APPLICABLE:The employment assistance on compassionate grounds will be allowed in order of priority only to widow or a son or an unmarried daughter (in case of unmarried Govt. Servant, to father, mother, brother and unmarried sister) of :-

¶24

a) A regular Government employee/Contractual employee, who dies while in services (including suicide), leaving his family indigent & in immediate need of assistance.

¶25

b) A Daily Waged worker, who dies while in service, leaving his/her family indigent & in immediate need of assistance.

¶26

c) A Government servant, who has been missing for more than two years, and the family is indigent & needs immediate assistance [an FIR to this effect must be

¶27

¶28

lodged with the Police, the missing person should be declared not traceable by the Court and the competent authority must satisfy itself that the case is genuine]. The cases of those missing Government servants are not to be considered who had less than two years to retire on the date from which they have gone missing or who are suspected to have committed fraud, or are suspected to have joined any terrorist organization or are suspected to have gone abroad:

¶29

d) A Government servant (Class-III and IV only), who retires on medical grounds under Rule-38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, provided the employee so retiring has not crossed the age of 45 years.”

¶30

In terms of the above extracted clause, legal heirs

¶31

of a regular employee/contractual employee, who dies while in service, leaving his family indigent and in immediate need of assistance, are within the ambit of the policy providing employment assistance on compassionate ground. Even a daily waged worker, who dies while in service, leaving his/her family indigent and in immediate need of assistance, falls within the purview of the policy providing compassionate employment to his eligible dependents.

¶32

The stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner’s husband, who died as Primary Assistant Teacher after serving for about thirteen years, is not included in the policy for appointment on compassionate grounds, is not in

¶33

¶34

consonance with the office memorandum dated 07.03.2019. No such stipulation can be found in the policy. Rather if the dependents of a daily wager can be considered eligible for employment on compassionate grounds under the policy, then all the more reasons for considering the case of compassionate appointment of the legal heirs of a Primary Assistant Teacher, who had rendered continuous service of thirteen years in the State Government before meeting his death in harness.

¶35

No other point was urged for the respondents.

¶36

4. For the foregoing reasons, respondent No.2/

¶37

competent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for employment on compassionate grounds in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions of applicable policy, within a period of four weeks from today. Any formalities, that are required to be completed at the end of the petitioner, be also got completed within the aforesaid period. Learned counsel for the petitioner assures that full cooperation shall be rendered by the petitioner in that regard. The decision so taken, shall be communicate to the petitioner.

¶38

¶39

The writ petition stands disposed in the above

¶40

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶41

any, also stand disposed of.

¶42

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶43

September 01, 2023

¶44

R.Atal

Sushma Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma Devi v. State of Hp and Others

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

Subodh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Praveen Kumar Sharma and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Chhape Ram Vs State of Hp and Another

Monika Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another

Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs Kuldeep Bhardwaj

Dr. Ritu Rani Vs Amitabh Awasthi and Anr.