Kulwant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kulwant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 May, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064257-DB




CWP-17469-2022
          2022 (O&M)                                                                         -1-


105
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                        CWP-17469-2022 (O&M)
                                                      Date of Decision: 08.05.2024
                                                                             .2024
KULWANT SINGH
                                                                        . . . . Petitioner
                                          Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
                                                                      . . . . Respondent
                       ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
                       ****

Present:    Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

                       ****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. The petitioner by way of this petition challenges Rule 12(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Services (Rules), 2002 which provides for conditions relating to missing Government servants for compassionate appointment. Rule 12(b) provides as under:

" 12. MISSING GOVERNMENT SERVANT Cases of missing Government servants are also covered under the scheme for compassionate appointment subject to the following conditions ::-

(a) A request to grant the benefit of compassionate appointment can be considered only after a lapse of at least 7 years from the date from which the Government servant has been missing provided that ::-

(i) An FIR to this effect has been lodged with the Police:

(ii) the missing person is not traceable: and 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 07:22:59 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064257-DB CWP-17469-2022 2022 (O&M) -2-

(iii)) the competent authority feels that the case is genuine.

(b) This benefit will not be applicable to the case of Governor Servant:-

Servant:

(i) who had less than 7 years to retire on the date from which he has been missing: or

(ii) who is suspected to have committed fraud or suspected to have joined joined any terrorist organization oor suspected to have gone abroad"

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's father went missing on 24.04.2012 while he was in service. A report to that effect was submitted to the police. Ultimately, the Civil Court declared him to be dead and a death certificate was issued declaring him dead as on 31.05.2019.

3. Learned counsel submits that on account of Rule 12(b)(i) of the Rules,, the petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment on the ground that t petitioner's father had attained superannuation age on 30.06.2015, and he therefore had less than seven years to retire from the date when he was missing.

4. Learned counsel submits that the Rule virtually takes away the benefit to which the members of the the family would be entitled to on account of missing of a Government servant. He submits that a missing person who is said to have died die as a civil death on completion of seven years of being not traceable is akin to a person who has expired on the day he wass missing, and the due help is required to be given in terms of compassionate appointment to the kith and kin of such a Government servant.

2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 07:23:00 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064257-DB CWP-17469-2022 2022 (O&M) -3-

5. We are unable to accede to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and find that the actual death of a missing person would be only on completion of seven years' years period of remaining untraced. Thus, the civil death would not relate from the date the person was missing, but is only from the date when period of seven years from the date of missing of such a person has expired.

6. In view thereto, there , if the concerned Government employee attains superannuation, his family would not be entitled for the benefit of compassionate appointment as he would not be deemed to be in service on the day when he expires (declared as civil death).

7. Thus, if we examine the case of the petitioner, we find that his father was declared dead as on 31.05.2019. On that day, he would have attained superannuation, as he would have retired on 30.06.2015. The benefits of retirement and death-cum death m-gratuity gratuity would however be available to the family, but compassionate appointment rules would therefore not apply.

8. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Srinivasa Rao vs. State of A.P. in Writ Petition No.10145 N of 2012,, decided on 18.02.2021 18.02.2021.. However, we find that the judgment does not take into consideration the provisions of the Rules that on the day the civil death is declared, the Government servant would have attained superannuation and the compassio compassionate nate appointment is only available to family of a government servant who dies while in service.

3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 07:23:00 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064257-DB CWP-17469-2022 2022 (O&M) -4-

9. The Rules framed by the State of Punjab therefore cannot be said to be in any manner ultra vires or unjustified.

10. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

11. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SHARMA) JUDGE ((SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE May 08,, 2024 Mohit goyal

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

2. Whether reportable? Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 07:23:00 :::