Punjab-Haryana High Court
Simranjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 26 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057368
CWP-800-2021(O&M) 2024:PHHC:057368
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
228 CWP-800-2021(O&M)
Date of decision: 26.04.2024
Simranjeet Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amarpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral)
1. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 24.09.2018 and directing the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel contends that the father of the petitioner, who was working as Sub Inspector in Punjab Police, unfortunately passed away on 24.08.2016, during the period of extension in service. The claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected on the premise that the instructions dated 27.12.2016 were withdrawn vide letter dated 29.03.2017. 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 followed, as per judgment of this Court in Krishna Kumari vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012 (2) SCT 736. The compliance to the judgment in Ajay Kumar (supra) was made during the pendency of COCP-2893-2020 filed, which were 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 01:55:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057368 CWP-800-2021(O&M) 2024:PHHC:057368 -2- disposed of on the statement made by the learned State counsel that the petitioner had been granted appointment on compassionate grounds. The operative portion of Ajay 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 aforesaid policy relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly states that the same has 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 on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a fresh appropriate order by according 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 present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in Ajay Kumar (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
26.04.2024 JUDGE
Aman Dua
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 01:55:45 :::