Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hans Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044587
CWP-23842-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:044587
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
222 WP-23842-2017 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 03.04.2024
Hans Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present : Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral) 1. The prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuanceofwritforquashingthe impugned letter/order dated 29.03.2017, Annexure P-5 and directing the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 2. Learnedcounselwouldsubmitthatmotherofthepetitioner,who was working as a Sweeper in the office of Sub-Divisional Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation, died in harness on 19.06.2013, during the period of extension in service. The claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the sole ground that the instructions dated 27.12.2016, Annexure P-2, were withdrawn vide instructions dated 29.03.2017, Annexure P-5. The issue involved in the present petition, has already been dealt with and decided by this Court vide judgments in Ajay Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-20693-2019, decided on 12.09.2019; Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-24534-2019, decided on 05.09.2019 and Bhupinder Kumar vs.State of Punjab and others, CWP-5175-2018, decided on 17.12.2019. The rules applicable on the date of death/incapacitation of an employee need to be 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 05-04-2024 03:20:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044587 CWP-23842-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:044587 -2- followed, as per judgment of this Court in Krishna Kumari vs. State of Haryanaandothers,2012(2)SCT736.Thecompliancetothejudgementin Ajay Kumar (supra) was made during the pendency of COCP-2893-2020 filed, which were disposed of on the statement made by the learned State counsel that the petitioner had been granted appointment on compassionate grounds.The operative portion ofAjay Kumar(supra),reads thus:- " 7. The perusal of the record shows that concededly the father of the petitioner was serving as Baildar at the time of his death on 14.09.2014. The aforesaidpolicyrelieduponbythelearnedcounselforthe petitioner clearly states that the same has to be implemented w.e.f. 08.10.2012. This policy held the field tillitswithdrawalon29.03.2017.Intheaforesaidpremise, theimpugnedordersdated04.12.2014(AnnexureP-9)and 06.04.2017 (Annexure P-11)seemtohavebeenpassedby overlooking the said Policy. The sameareaccordinglyset aside being not sustainable in law. 8. Without commenting on the merits of the case,thewritpetitionisdisposedofwithadirectiontothe respondentstopassafreshappropriateorderbyaccording the benefit of the Policy/ Instructions dated 27.12.2016 (Annexure P-5) to the petitioner, in accordance with law. " 3. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts is unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 29.03.2017, Annexure P-5 is set aside and the present petition is disposed ofintermsof the judgment passed inAjay Kumar(supra). (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 0 3.04.2024 Hemant hether speaking/reasoned W : es / No Y Whether reportable : Yes / No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 05-04-2024 03:20:32 :::