IMPORTANT POINT
The relaxation of government instructions in a similar case estopped the appellant department from denying the respondent's request for appointment against a class-III post.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

CMP(M) No.83 of 2024

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal, which in our considered view, has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

2. Appeal be registered.

LPA No. 34 of 2024

3. Instant Letters Patent Appeal lays challenge to the judgment dated 28.7.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWPOA No. 6527 of 2019, titled Shanti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby a direction came to be issued to the appellants to offer appointment to the petitioner (respondent herein) against Class-III post on compassionate grounds w.e.f. 6.8.2015, i.e. the date on which her representation was rejected by the competent authority with all consequential benefits.

4. Key facts, necessary for adjudication of the case at hand are that father of the respondent, who was serving with the appellants-department as a Fitter died in harness on 30.6.2003, leaving behind his wife and two daughters including the respondent. Though respondent was eligible and entitled for appointment against class-III post as her father was holding class-III post when he died, but she was offered appointment against the post of daily wage beldar w.e.f. 13.12.2005. On account of utter penury, respondent had no option but to accept the compassionate appointment against class-IV beldar.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid offer of appointment on compassionate grounds against class-IV post, respondent filed OA before the erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal, which on account of abolition of the Tribunal came to be transferred to this Court and was registered as CWP(T) No. 15372 of 2008. Since during pendency of the aforesaid petition, it came to the notice of the respondent that appellant-department offered appointment to a similarly situate person against class-III post on compassionate grounds, she sought withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file appropriate representation to the appellant-department.

6. Pursuant to liberty granted by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, respondent made representation to the appellant-department, praying therein that she be offered appointment against class-III post as she was duly qualified to be appointed against class-III post and one Ms. Neelam Gazta had also been given appointment by the department against class-III post in August, 2010. However, aforesaid prayer of the respondent was not accepted by the appellant-department and her representation was replied vide communication dated 26.8.2013, stating therein that since she had already accepted the appointment against the post of daily wage beldar on compassionate grounds, therefore, post once accepted cannot be changed as per government instructions. In the aforesaid backdrop, respondent was compelled to approach the writ court by way of CWP No. 7803 of 2010, which ultimately came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 31.12.2014, with direction to the appellants to consider the case of the respondent in view of the principles laid down in judgment dated 16.12.2010, titled Sukh Dutt v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

7. Though pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the writ court, appellants-department considered representation of the respondent but vide office order dated 8.6.2015, rejected her prayer, as a consequence thereof, she was compelled to knock the door of the court again vide CWPOA No. 6527 of 2010, which is subject matter of the present appeal.

8. In nutshell, grouse of the respondent which came to be highlighted through the writ petition and further canvassed by the learned counsel representing the respondent was that since father of the respondent was class-III employee at the time of his death and at that point of time, respondent was fully qualified to be offered appointment against class-III post on compassionate grounds, appellant department ought not have offered appointment to the respondent against class-IV post.