Maintainability under service-matter definition; locus to sue via Section 19 is lacking when filed by a relative on behalf of a deceased employee.

Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)

CMP (T) No. 610 of 2024

By way of the present application, the indulgence of this Court has been sought to expedite the hearing of the petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is considered and allowed. The hearing of this case is ordered to be expedited.

3. The application is disposed of accordingly.

CWPOA No. 6029 of 2019

4. Petitioner-Vinay Kumar has initially filed Original Application No. 4607 of 2015, before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrate Trfibunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,t 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), seeking the following substantive reliefs:

“(i) That the office order dated 15.06.2015 at Annexure rejecting the claim of the applicant may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to count the adhoc services rendered by the father of the applicant late Sh. Sher Singh from 21.07.1991 to 04.01.1994 towards service increments and pension with all consequential g benefits and the arrears accrued may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest to the i applicant and other Legal Representatives of H the deceased alongwith other pensionary benefits.”

5. After the abolition of the Tribunal, the said Original Application was transferred to this Court and has been registered as CWPOA No. 6029 of 2019.

6. As per the case, pleaded in the petition, the main grievance of the petitioner is that his father was appointed as Chowkidar in the Department of Technical Education on 21^st July, 1991, on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, the services of his father were regularized on 5^th January, 1994 and he superannuated from service on 31^st October, 2002.

7. According to the petitionefr, his father was appointed against substantive post, on ad hoc basis, after following due process of seletction and he has discharged his services to the best of his ability and the entire satisfaction of his superiors. The father of the petitioner was denied the benefit of annual increment, while serving on ad hoc basis and his ad hoc services are also stated to have hnot been taken into account towards the qualifying sgervice, for grant of pension and as such, according to the ipetitioner, his father was denied pension on account of qualifying service, for the same.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that his father, during his lifetime, had filed CWP No. 6516 of 2014, for counting his ad hoc service, towards service increment and pension. The said petition was decided by this Court on 12^th September, 2014, with a direction to the respondents to consider his case. Thereafter, the claim, so raised by the father of the petitioner was rejected by respondnet No. 2 on 15^th June, 2015, however, according to the petitioner, his father had expired on 5^th September, 2014.

9. The rejection order is stated to have been passed in violation of the directions off this Court in LPA No. 36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram versus State of H.P. & ors. t

10. On the basis of the above facts, the relief, as reproduced above, has been sought by the petitioner.

11. When put to notice, the factual position, as pleaded in the petition, has not been disputed, however, accorhding to the respondents, the representation of Sher Sgingh (father of the petitioner) has been rejected by the Department, vide order, dated 15^th June, 2015.

12. Supporting the said rejection order, a prayer has been made, on behalf of the respondents, that the petition be dismissed.

13. Petitioner has filed the rejoinder, denying the contents of the reply, by virtue of which, the contents of the writ petition have been contested.

14. Heard.

15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not justify the judicial conscience of this Court as to how the instant petition, which has been filed by the petitioner, on behalf of his father, w