IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12573 of 2008 Date of decision: 11.07.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Vats. .....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, with Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(a) and (b): “7(a) The order of rejection of the claim of the deceased Manjul Vats may kindly be sent aside and quashed. (b) The respondent be directed to allowed the ex-gratia grant of his brother being a sole legal heir. 2. In reply, respondents have taken the following stand by way of preliminary submissions: “Preliminary Submissions: It is submitted that as per nomination recorded in the service record at the instance of the deceased, namely, Sh. Manjul Vats, the Death Cum Retirement Gratuity has already been released to the mother of the deceased viz. Smt. Daya Devi Sharma. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... Further it is submitted that in order to regulate the payment of ex-gratia grant and other facilities for families of Govt. employees who die while in service, the Govt. of HP in the Department of Finance (Regulation) has framed a policy which stand issued vide Office Memorandum No. 2/2/71-Fin(Reg) dated 13.3.1972 enjoining upon therein measures to be adopted for providing relief to the families of the Govt. servants on account of the premature death of the person. Case of the applicant has been examined in accordance with the conditions laid in the general policy in this behalf by the Government of H.P. issued vide Office Memorandum referred to above. As a consequence of that it is found that the case of the applicant is not covered as per conditions laid in the said Office Memorandum because of the fact that the applicant has failed to submit the requisite information on the proforma devised thereto alongwith the affidavit duly attested & a reasonable proof of title to grant and other facilities as the case may be. As a metter of fact in the absence of submission of requisite information specified in para 2 of the said Office Memorandum a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure (R-I), the case of the applicant does not fall within the ambit of conditions / measures to be adopted in this behalf, therefore, the relief as sought for under Para-7 of the OA can not be meted out to him. In view of the foregoing position the applicant has no locus standi to file the OA and the same is not maintainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice.”” 3. Rejoinder, refuting the above stand on behalf of the respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition, has been filed. 4. In view of the above reply and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same before the respondents/competent authority by way of appropriate representation alongwith copy of this judgment within two months from today, who shall consider ...3... the same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law within next three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 5. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 11th July, 2011 (virender)