Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspal Singh Brar And Anr vs Narinder Singh And Ors on 4 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045503-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:045503-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
107
(1) LPA-381-2023 (O&M)
Jaspal Singh Brar & another ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Narinder Singh & others ......Respondent(s)
(2) LPA-380-2023 (O&M)
Jaspal Singh Brar ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Pawan Kumar & others ......Respondent(s)
(3) LPA-383-2023 (O&M)
Jaspal Singh Brar & another ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Lakhwinder Singh & another ......Respondent(s)
Decided on : 04.04.2024
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.Karmanbir Singh Kharbanda, Advocate for the appellants.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
1. Consideration in the present appeals is to the judgment dated
17.02.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in 4 writ petitions bearing
CWP-20267-2020, CWP-25-2023, CWP-9641-2016 and CWP-25300-
2017 whereby same were allowed and the seniority list dated 22.03.2012
was quashed and directions were issued to prepare a fresh seniority list in
accordance with the Punjab Naib-Tehsildars (Class-III) Service Rules,
1984 (for short, the 'Rules') within a period of 3 months. Thus the
appellants herein are adversely affected.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045503-DB
LPA-381, 380 & 383-2023 (O&M)
2. The reasoning which weighed with the Learned Single Judge
while allowing the writ petitions is that the order dated 09.10.2009
(Annexure P-10) had been passed by the Commissioner whereby the date
of seniority/enlistment of the present appellants had been taken from the
date of receipt of applications for the post of Naib Tehsildars on
compassionate ground. Resultantly, the Learned Single Judge kept in
mind Rule 16 of the Rules wherein it is provided that seniority is to be in
the order of appointment to the service and merely because the
applications had been given for the job and accepted by the competent
authority on 09.10.2009, the same could not be incorporated in the final
seniority list dated 23.03.2012. The rule thus provided governing of the
inter se seniority between the members of the cadre.
3. The defence taken that on an earlier occasion, the Division
Bench had directed that the seniority list of aspirants for compassionate
appointment is to be maintained and the instructions were duly issued on
30.09.1996 and the factum of delay and laches, was rejected on the ground
that firstly the order was never circulated and the moment fresh seniority
list had been issued, it was challenged. It was accordingly held that the
instructions could only supplement the rules but could not supplant the
same. The statutory service rules never provided or envisaged seniority
from the date of submission of application seeking appointment and the
same were given to help the families who suffered due to the unexpected
tragedy and not to give the benefit of seniority never having been born in
the cadre. Resultantly, it was held that seniority could not be given prior
to the day when they were born in the cadre and merely on account of the
delay in appointment would not give them a cause of action to claim
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045503-DB
LPA-381, 380 & 383-2023 (O&M)
seniority over and above the other employees. The first writ petition
having been filed in December, 2012 and numbered in January, 2013 was
the reason to reject the plea of delay and laches as has been sought to be
raised by the appellants herein before the Learned Single Judge.
4. Counsel for the appellants has sought to convince us that
appointment on compassionate ground had been given on account of the
inaction of the State, there was delay in appointment which had prejudiced
the present appellants.
5. We are of the considered opinion that the reasoning given by
the Learned Single Judge was very well justified. The statutory rules
govern the service conditions and in the absence of any rules retrospective
effect to the date of appointment could not be given which would be alien
to the issue of seniority in service law. It would mean that a large number
of aspirants would step in and persons appointed in service by regular
selection would be faced with the ignominy of being placed junior to a
subsequent appointee. Rather, the delay in processing the applications
would go on to give enormous benefits to a person and the misuse of such
methodology would rather lead to a morphing affect in the service
conditions. The argument raised that policy was framed to maintain the
seniority list was only for the purpose of appointment on compassionate
ground inter se the persons similarly situated. It does not give any right of
seniority of appointment to persons which has to be reckoned from the
date of appointment.
6. The Apex Court has time and again held that employment by
way of compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule.
Reliance can be placed upon the observations of the Apex Court in Umesh
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045503-DB
LPA-381, 380 & 383-2023 (O&M)
Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & others, 1994 (4) SCC 138
whereby it has been observed that appointments under the scheme of
compassionate appointment are not appointments in the normal mode but
are an exception and it is for the purpose to enable the penurious family of
the deceased-employee to tide over the sudden financial crises and not to
provide employment as a normal course. The relevant observations read as
under:-
"2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while
giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It
appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a
rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the
basis of open invitation of Applications and merit. No other mode of
appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the
Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other
procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post.
However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every
case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and
to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the
dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in
penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure
humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless
some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to
make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful
employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the
sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post
much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere
death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source
of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to
examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is
only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family
will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible
member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest
posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045503-DB
LPA-381, 380 & 383-2023 (O&M)
offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family,
of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The
provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to
the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The
favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee
in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved,
viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to
be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered
in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased
there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more
destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the
deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him
and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs,
of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are
suddenly upturned."
7. In such circumstances, Learned Single Judge was justified in
coming to the conclusion and rather rectified the error apparent which the
Commissioner, Ferozepur had committed in tinkering with the settled
seniority list while passing the order.
8. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the reasoning
which had been adopted by the Learned Single Judge does not suffer from
any infirmity. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, finding no
merit in the present appeals, the same are hereby dismissed in limine. All
pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
04.04.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
5 of 5
