|
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Monday directed the State government to issue an appointment letter to a man whose compassionate appointment had been withheld for over four years due to a pending criminal case, ruling that mere registration of an FIR for petty offences cannot be grounds to deny employment.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, delivering the order in Yog Raj versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, observed that until an accused is convicted by a competent court, he is deemed innocent, and denial of appointment solely on the basis of a pending FIR -- especially for minor offences -- is unsustainable. The case dates back to 2009, when the petitioner's father, a Junior Basic Teacher in the Elementary Education Department, died in harness. Yog Raj applied for a compassionate appointment in 2010. Though his application was initially rejected in 2011, it was later reconsidered, and in March 2021, the government approved his appointment as a Junior Office Assistant (IT) on compassionate grounds. However, no appointment letter was issued. It later emerged that the delay was due to the pendency of FIR No. 5 of 2019, registered under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC, relating to an altercation. The petitioner argued that such a case could not be treated as a bar to his appointment. The Court referred to earlier judgments, including Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Rajinder Kumar vs. HRTC, which held that the nature and gravity of the alleged offence must be considered, and that mere registration of a case is not equivalent to a finding of guilt. Justice Sharma found no evidence that the petitioner had concealed the FIR from authorities, noting that at no stage was he asked to disclose pending criminal proceedings. The Court emphasised that compassionate appointments are linked to the livelihood of bereaved families and must be handled with care, not mechanical rejection. Allowing the petition, the High Court directed the State to issue the appointment letter within four weeks, as per seniority, making it clear that the petitioner's continuation in service would depend on the outcome of the criminal trial. (ANI)
|
