Punjab-Haryana High Court
Durga Devi And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044515
CWP-13096-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:044515
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
227 WP-13096-2019 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 03.04.2024
Durga Devi and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral) 1. TheprayerinthepresentCivilWritPetitionunderArticle226of the Constitution of India, is for quashing the impugnedorderNo.4877dated 26.10.2018,AnnexureP-6,anddirectingtherespondentstoconsiderthecase of the petitioner No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment. 2. Learned counsel would submit that husband of petitioner No.1, whowasemployedasSeniorAssistantintheIrrigationDepartment,haddied in harness on 12.02.2017 during the period of extension in service and thereafter the claim of petitioner no.2 for appointment on compassionate ground to the post of Clerk has been rejected on the solitary premise of the instructions dated 27.12.2016, having been withdrawn vide Memo No. 22/22/2014-3FP/2/821dated29.03.2017.Theissueasinvolvedinthepresent petition, has already been dealt with and decided by this Court in Ajay Kumar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. As per judgmentofthisCourtinKrishnaKumarivs.StateofHaryanaandothers, 2012 (2) SCT 736, therulesapplicableonthedateofdeath/incapacitationof 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 05-04-2024 03:18:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044515 CWP-13096-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:044515 -2- an employee need to be followed. The compliancetothejudgementinAjay 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), readsthus:- " 7. The perusal of the record shows that concededly the father of the petitioner was serving as Baildar at thetimeofhis death on 14.09.2014. The aforesaid policy relied upon by the learnedcounselforthepetitionerclearlystatesthatthesamehas to be implemented w.e.f. 08.10.2012. This policy held the field till its withdrawal on 29.03.2017. In the aforesaid premise, the impugned orders dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure P-9) and 06.04.2017 (Annexure P-11) seem to have been passed by overlooking the said Policy. The same are accordingly set aside being not sustainable in law. 8. Without commenting onthemeritsofthecase,thewrit petitionisdisposedofwithadirectiontotherespondentstopass a fresh appropriate order by according the benefitofthePolicy/ Instructionsdated27.12.2016(AnnexureP-5)tothepetitioner,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 26.10.2018, Annexure P-6 is set aside and the present petition is disposed ofintermsof the judgment passed inAjay Kumar(supra). (AMAN CHAUDHARY) 0 3.04.2024 JUDGE Hemant hether speaking/reasoned W : es / No Y Whether reportable : Yes / No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 05-04-2024 03:18:25 :::