Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davinder Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 23 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054625
CWP-23566-2013 2024:PHHC:054625 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(208) CWP-23566-2013
Date of Decision : April 23, 2024
Davinder Singh .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate, for
Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is
that his claim for the grant of compassionate appointment has been refused
by the respondents on a ground which is contrary to the settled principle of
law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the father of the
petitioner was working on the post of Deputy Superintendent with the
Department of Police and unfortunately died while in service on
22.07.2004. At the time of death, the father of the petitioner was working
on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and immediately thereafter,
keeping in view the policy which was in-vogue at the time of death of father
of the petitioner, the claim was raised for the grant of compassionate
appointment qua the petitioner on the post of Inspector. The matter was
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054625
kept pending and the said claim was decided by the respondents vide order
dated 27.08.2013 (Annexure P-9) stating that as there was no vacancy in the
cadre of Inspector, he was offered a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs as compassionate
financial assistance, which was refused by the petitioner and even the Rules
which were applicable for the grant of financial assistance at the time of
death of father of the petitioner were amended in August 2006 according to
which, there is no provision for ex-gratia employment hence, no
employment can be offered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rules were
amended in the year 2006 but as per the judgment of the Full Bench of this
Court in CWP No.4303 of 2009 titled as Krishna Kumari vs. State of
Haryana and others, decided on 20.04.2012, the policy which was
applicable at the time of death of an employee, is to be made applicable and
not the policy which was applicable at the time of the consideration of the
claim hence, the respondents are under an obligation to decide the claim of
the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment under 2003
Policy, which was applicable at the time of death of father of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that once it has
been mentioned that there was no vacancy in the cadre of Inspector, merely
that it has been mentioned that 2003 Rules have also been amended will not
render the order as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the judgment in
Krishna Kumari's case (supra).
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. It is a settled principle of law that the policy issued for
compassionate appointment, which was in operation at the time of death is
to be made applicable and not the policy which is applicable at the time of
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054625
consideration of claim. Concededly, 2003 Policy was applicable at the time
of the death of the employee hence, the respondents were under an
obligation to consider the claim of the petitioner for the grant of
compassionate appointment under the said policy and not under the policy
which came into operation in August 2006.
7. Qua the argument that there was no post available in the cadre
of Inspector, nothing has come on record that the vacancy in the said post
was not available when the petitioner applied in the year 2004.
8. In the absence of the said clarity, the impugned order dated
27.08.2013 (Annexure P-9) is set aside and the respondents are directed to
consider the claim of the petitioner afresh under 2003 Policy as to whether,
keeping in view the number of posts available in the cadre of Inspector and
the seniority position of the petitioner to claim the same under the
compassionate appointment whether the petitioner is entitled for the grant of
the said benefit or not.
9. Let an appropriate order be passed within a period of eight
weeks of the receipt of copy of this order and the outcome of the said order
be conveyed to the petitioner for his information and necessary action.
10. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
April 23, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
