Back
2015 Supreme(HP) 657
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir & Dharam Chand Chaudhary, JJ.
Avinash Chauhan - Petitioner
Versus
P.C. Dhiman and others - Respondents
COPC No. 308 of 2015
Decided on: 2.7.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Vikram Thakur, Deputy Advocate Generals for the respondents.
The judgment established that the income from pension or other retiral benefits cannot be included while computing the income for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Appointment on Compassionate Ground - CWP No.7674 of 2013 - [Income Criteria, Family Pension, Retiral Benefits] - The court discussed the judgment dated 9.12.2013, which directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the policy prevalent at the time when the father of the petitioner died and in terms of the law discussed in the judgment. The court highlighted that the income from pension or other retiral benefits cannot be included while computing the income for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents' failure to comply with the judgment intentionally and deliberately led to the finding of contempt of court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his father, but his application was rejected based on income criteria. The Division Bench of the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the application in accordance with the policy prevalent at the time of the father's death.
Finding of the Court:
The respondents violated the judgment intentionally and deliberately by including the income from pension and retiral benefits while computing the family's income for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground.
Issues: Violation of judgment, Contempt of Court
Ratio Decidendi: The income from pension or other retiral benefits cannot be included while computing the income for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents' failure to comply with the judgment intentionally and deliberately led to the finding of contempt of court.
Final Decision: The respondents were found in contempt of court for violating the judgment and were ordered to appear in person to show cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt of court.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge
Complaint herein is that the respondents have failed to implement the judgment dated 9.12.2013, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.7674 of 2013, in letter and spirit, despite having been directed to implement the same repeatedly. They allegedly have shown scant regard to the judgment passed by this Court and thereby undermined the majesty and dignity of this Court, hence rendered themselves liable for being punished for the contempt of this Court.
2. Shri Piar Singh, father of the petitioner, was working as PET in the Education Department of Himachal Pradesh. He died in harness in the year 2006. The qualification of the petitioner is plus two. Besides, he did degrees in Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) and Master of Physical Education (M.P. Ed.). He made an application, seeking appointment on compassionate ground commensurate with his educational qualification in the year 2006 itself. The same was considered and rejected. Consequent upon the issuance of communication OM No. EDN-H(1)(b(4)241/2004-05- Comp. Appt. dated 20.10.2012 (Annexure P-15 to the writ petition) qua rejection of his application, Deputy Director Higher Education, Bilaspur, informed the petitioner, vide letter dated 21.11.2012 Annexure C-3 to this petition that in view of income of his family as Rs.63,000/- per annum i.e. beyond the income criteria fixed by the Government under the Scheme to make appointment on compassionate ground, his application was rejected.
3. The above decision came to be challenged by the petitioner in CWP No.7674/2013. A division Bench of this Court has allowed the writ petition after taking into consideration the given facts and circumstances and also the law applicable with the following observations:
“8. If that be the sole ground for rejection, in the circumstances, we quash and set aside Annexures P-15 and P-16 and hold that two orders do not detail the facts holding that the income of the petitioner is Rs.63,000/- (Annexure P-16), in fact we find Annexure P-16 to be a non-speaking and terse order without in any manner forms any ground for decision. Writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the policy prevalent at the time when the father of the petitioner died in terms of the law supra.
4. As a matter of fact, the action of the respondents to take into consideration the amount received by the mother of the petitioner by way of retiral benefits, including pension, for the purpose of computation of annual income of the family has been quashed and set aside by this Court in the judgment supra with a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the policy prevalent at the time when the father of the petitioner died and in terms of the law discussed in the judgment.
5. When the respondents failed to implement the judgment passed by this Court, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition (C) No.121/2014 against them. The same was disposed of vide order dated 5.5.2014 Annexure C-8, which reads as follows:
“This contempt petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to comply with the Court directions dated 9.12.2013, passed in CWP No.7674 of 2013, within six weeks, if not already complied with and report compliance before the Additional Registrar (Judicial).
2. The Registry to convey the order to the respondents and also furnish the copy of the same to the learned Advocate General. The petition stands disposed of.”
In compliance to the orders so passed in the Contempt Petition, the 3rd respondent has filed affidavit, stating therein that the Administrative Department had taken up the matter with the Finance Department for consideration and the Finance Department has found the income of the family of the petitioner at the time of death of his father as Rs.1,19,034/- per annum. Therefore, the petitioner was not found entitled to employment o
