Jitan Kumar @ Jatinder @ Keshav @ ... vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 14855 P&H

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114925




                                              2023:PHHC:114925
126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                              RSA-6252-2018 (O&M)
                                              Date of decision: 01.09.2023

Jitan Kumar @ Jatinder @ Keshav @ Jeetan Kumar

                                               ..Appellant

            Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                              .Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:- Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for the appellant

Mr. Ajit Singh Natt, AAG, Punjab

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

1. In this litigation, the appellant (Jitan Kumar) and respondent

no.5 (Swaran Kumar) have been fighting inter se to claim pensionary

benefits of late Sh.Ram Charan, who died in harness, on 09.06.2006.

Sh.Swaran Kumar claims to be the adopted son of late Sh.Ram Charan

whereas Sh. Jitan Kumar claims to be his natural son. Sh.Swaran Kumar

also claims the pensionary benefits on the basis of a Will. Both the

courts have found that Sh.Swaran Kumar failed to prove the Will and

Sh.Jitan Kumar, being the natural son is entitled to receive the

pensionary benefits of late Sh.Ram Charan.

2. Through this appeal, Sh.Jitan Kumar claims that he is

entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits and a

direction is required to be issued to the respondents-State to consider the

appellant's claim for appointment on compassionate basis in place of late

Sh.Ram Charan, who died in harness. It is evident that two different

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114925

RSA-6252-2018 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:114925

claimants were staking claims over the retiral benefits of late Sh.Ram

Charan. In these circumstances, the Government played safe and waited

for the judgment of the competent court. Hence, there is no fault of the

State Government in not releasing the payment of the retiral benefits.

3. As regards the claim of the appellant for compassionate

appointment, it may be noticed that the appellant is nearly 45 years of

age. The compassionate appointment is not an another source of

recruitment. Certain posts are taken out from the purview of the

competition in order to support the family members of the deceased

employee, who was their sole bread earner. Such scheme is to

immediately support family members of the deceased employee, in order

to enable them to survive in the world. However, now nearly 17 years

have elapsed.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is made

out.

5. Hence, dismissed.

6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

01.09.2023                                       (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                 JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :        Yes/No
Whether reportable :               Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114925

2 of 2