Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hans Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044587
CWP-23842-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:044587
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
222 WP-23842-2017 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 03.04.2024
Hans Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral)
1. The prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuanceofwritforquashingthe
impugned letter/order dated 29.03.2017, Annexure P-5 and directing the
respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
2. Learnedcounselwouldsubmitthatmotherofthepetitioner,who
was working as a Sweeper in the office of Sub-Divisional Engineer, Water
Supply & Sanitation, died in harness on 19.06.2013, during the period of
extension in service. The claim of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground was rejected on the sole ground that the instructions
dated 27.12.2016, Annexure P-2, were withdrawn vide instructions dated
29.03.2017, Annexure P-5. 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
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044587
CWP-23842-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:044587
-2-
followed, as per judgment of this Court in Krishna Kumari vs. State of
Haryanaandothers,2012(2)SCT736.Thecompliancetothejudgementin
Ajay 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),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
aforesaidpolicyrelieduponbythelearnedcounselforthe
petitioner clearly states that the same has to be
implemented w.e.f. 08.10.2012. This policy held the field
tillitswithdrawalon29.03.2017.Intheaforesaidpremise,
theimpugnedordersdated04.12.2014(AnnexureP-9)and
06.04.2017 (Annexure P-11)seemtohavebeenpassedby
overlooking the said Policy. The sameareaccordinglyset
aside being not sustainable in law.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the
case,thewritpetitionisdisposedofwithadirectiontothe
respondentstopassafreshappropriateorderbyaccording
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 impugned order dated 29.03.2017,
Annexure P-5 is set aside and the present petition is disposed ofintermsof
the judgment passed inAjay Kumar(supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
0 3.04.2024
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
2 of 2
