Naushad vs State of H.P.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.—By means of this petition, the following reliefs have been claimed:

The order of rejection passed by the respondent No. 2 in the representation/recommendation for the post of machinist may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing appropriate writ or direction.

That respondent be directed to consider petitioner as on the post of machinist from the date of first appointment of petitioner in the respondent department and further to direct to pay all the consequential benefits.

It is not disputed that prior to filing of this petition a number of petitions have been filed by the petitioner seeking the same or similar reliefs. But what is important is the fact as to how the petitioner came to be appointed and under what circumstances and findings the first writ petition filed by the petitioner has attained finality.

In the year 1996 the petitioner filed CWP No. 1366/96 before this court, wherein a prayer was made to direct the respondents to appoint him as Machinist/Plumber/Fitter (skilled workman) to the post he is eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds. The petitioner''s father had died in harness on 5.10.1972 when the petitioner was aged about seven years. The petitioner''s father was a skilled worker in Nahan Foundry, which was taken over by the State on 1.10.1988. The petitioner attained majority in the year 1983. In 1985 petitioner''s mother applied for appointment on compassionate grounds but she was not appointed. Thereafter the petitioner applied for appointment and vide letter dated 2.11.1994, he was informed that there was no post of Machinist available in the department if the petitioner was interested to get the appointment for the post of Peon/Chowkidar, then he had to give his consent in writing with necessary amendment in Form in Column No. (f). The petitioner was not willing to be appointed as Peon/Chowkidar and therefore, sent his reply stating that he preferred the post of Fitter/Plumber as he was qualified for those posts. When the respondents refused to accede to his request, the aforesaid writ petition came to be filed, wherein he sought directions from this court against the respondents to appoint him Machinist/Plumber/Fitter (skilled workman), to which post he is eligible on compassionate ground immediately.

This petition was dismissed by this court on the ground that the father of the petitioner had died in the year 1972 when there was no scheme for appointment on compassionate ground which scheme was only introduced in 1977 and therefore, the petitioner ought to have applied for appointment on compassionate ground within three years after attaining the age of majority, which admittedly the petitioner had not done. But since the respondents had kept alive the offer of appointing the petitioner on the post of Peon/Chowkidar, it was open to the petitioner to accept the offer within four weeks, failing which the offer of the respondents will cease to be in force. The relevant portion of order passed by this court on 3.9.1996 reads thus:-

"In this writ petition the Court is not inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioner as he can not claim a particular post as a matter of right on compassionate grounds. One of the objections raised by the respondents is that the father of the petitioner died in 1972 when there was no scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Scheme was introduced only in 1977 and as per the provisions of the scheme as amended in 1984, the petitioner ought to have applied for appointment on compassionate grounds within three years after attaining the age of majority. Admittedly, the petitioner has not done so. However, the respondents have made offer of the post of Peon/Chaukidar. The learned counsel for the respondents states that still they stand by that.

In the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted and the writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to accept the offer made by the respondents to appoint him as Peon/Chowkidar, if he so desires, in writing and get appointment on compassionate grounds. The said communication from the petitioner shall be submitted to the respondents within four weeks failing which the offer of the respondents will cease to be in force."

Admittedly, the aforesaid order has attained finality. Any recommendation made subsequently by any authority whatsoever is of no avail in teeth of aforesaid judgment of this court.

The petitioner has been appointed not as a matter of right but on account of concession given by the respondents. Having been appointed on concession and accepted the same, the petitioner has no right to claim the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition as the same have already been specifically rejected by this court in CWP No. 1366 of 1996.

Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.