Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasvir Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 September, 2022
CWP-28679-2017 -1-
---------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
219 CWP-28679-2017
Date of decision : 20.09.2022
Jasvir Kaur
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
.. Respondents
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present:- Mr. Bikramjit Singh Jatana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 6.
***
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.06.2017
(Annexure P-2) whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate ground
has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the
petitioner, who had been employed as Lineman on contractual basis with the
respondents, had expired on 12.01.2015 after rendering over three years of
service. The services of other employees, who were working with the husband
of the petitioner and had completed three years of service, had been regularized
by the respondents in terms of the policy dated 17.08.2015 (Annexure P-3). He
has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Beant Kaur versus
State of Punjab, 2001(3) SCT 321 and Dalbir Kaur versus State of Punjab
and others, bearing CWP No.1731 of 2011, decided on 10.01.2012.
1 of 3
---------
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6, while referring to the
reply filed by the respondents, submits that as the husband of the petitioner was
not a regular employee, her case for compassionate appointment had been
rejected. The services of other employees, who were also working on
contractual basis, had been regularized in terms of the policy dated 17.08.2015
(Annexure P-3) but the husband of the petitioner had expired on 12.01.2015
and thus, the case of the petitioner would not be covered under this policy
(Annexure P-3). She has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan versus Laxmi Devi
and others, passed in Civil Appeal No.3605 of 2009, decided on 15.05.2009.
Heard.
The husband of the petitioner had been appointed as a Lineman on
25.11.2011 on contractual basis in pursuance to an advertisement i.e. CRA-
267/2011 issued by the respondents. He had been posted in the office of
Protection and Maintenance Division Barnala. On 12.01.2015, he had
unfortunately expired in a road accident while returning home from his duty.
The services of other Lineman who had been appointed in pursuance to CRA-
267/2011 on contract basis along with the husband of the petitioner had been
regularized after completion of three years of service. The husband of the
petitioner had also completed three years of service when he had unfortunately
expired.
This Court in the case of Dalbir Kaur versus State of Punjab
and others(supra) had allowed the petition by holding that the services of the
husband of the petitioner therein, who had also unfortunately expired, would
have been regularized as a Constable had he not expired while relying upon a
2 of 3
---------
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Beant Kaur versus
State of Punjab (supra).
The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of General
Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan versus Laxmi Devi and others (supra)
relied upon by the counsel for the respondents is distinguishable on facts and
not applicable to the instant case as the petitioner therein was the wife of a
daily wager and it was in such circumstances held that a daily wager cannot be
treated as a regular employee.
In the instant case, the husband of the petitioner was a contractual
employee after having appointed through an advertisement issued by the
respondents. The deceased employee would have been eligible for
regularization in terms of the policy dated 17.08.2015 (Annexure P-3) as he
had put in three years of service. The petitioner is a widow with two minor
children. It would also be unjust and inequitable to deny her claim for
compassionate appointment.
Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order
dated 12.06.2017 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. The respondents will consider
the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on a
suitable post as per her academic qualifications ignoring the fact that her
husband was not a regular employee. The needful shall be done within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
September 20, 2022
sonia gugnani
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
