Punjab-Haryana High Court
Durga Devi And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044515
CWP-13096-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:044515
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
227 WP-13096-2019 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 03.04.2024
Durga Devi and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral)
1. TheprayerinthepresentCivilWritPetitionunderArticle226of
the Constitution of India, is for quashing the impugnedorderNo.4877dated
26.10.2018,AnnexureP-6,anddirectingtherespondentstoconsiderthecase
of the petitioner No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment.
2. Learned counsel would submit that husband of petitioner No.1,
whowasemployedasSeniorAssistantintheIrrigationDepartment,haddied
in harness on 12.02.2017 during the period of extension in service and
thereafter the claim of petitioner no.2 for appointment on compassionate
ground to the post of Clerk has been rejected on the solitary premise of the
instructions dated 27.12.2016, having been withdrawn vide Memo No.
22/22/2014-3FP/2/821dated29.03.2017.Theissueasinvolvedinthepresent
petition, has already been dealt with and decided by this Court 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. As per
judgmentofthisCourtinKrishnaKumarivs.StateofHaryanaandothers,
2012 (2) SCT 736, therulesapplicableonthedateofdeath/incapacitationof
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044515
CWP-13096-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:044515
-2-
an employee need to be followed. The compliancetothejudgementinAjay
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), readsthus:-
" 7. The perusal of the record shows that concededly the
father of the petitioner was serving as Baildar at thetimeofhis
death on 14.09.2014. The aforesaid policy relied upon by the
learnedcounselforthepetitionerclearlystatesthatthesamehas
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 onthemeritsofthecase,thewrit
petitionisdisposedofwithadirectiontotherespondentstopass
a fresh appropriate order by according the benefitofthePolicy/
Instructionsdated27.12.2016(AnnexureP-5)tothepetitioner,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 26.10.2018,
Annexure P-6 is set aside and the present petition is disposed ofintermsof
the judgment passed inAjay Kumar(supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
0 3.04.2024 JUDGE
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
2 of 2
