Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 26 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059815
-1-
CWP-20372 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-20372 of 2018
Date of decision: 26.04.2024
Manpreet Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. Jagraj Singh Khiva, Advocate, and
Ms. Geetanjali Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshta, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 to 4.
NAMIT KUMAR, J
1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of
mandamus for directing the respondents to consider the claim of the
petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in view of the
Punjab Government policy dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-4), on
account of death of the father of the petitioner, who died during service.
2. The brief facts, as have been pleaded in the present
petition, are that father of the petitioner, Sh. Randhir Singh was
working as Assistant Lineman in the office of respondent No.2 and he
unfortunately died on 04.11.2011, while in service, leaving behind his
mother, namely, Jangir Kaur, wife Ramjit Kaur and the petitioner and
all the members of his family were dependent upon him at the time of
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059815
CWP-20372 of 2018
his death and since there is no source of income, therefore, the
petitioner is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.
It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of death of his father, he
was 13 years of age as his date of birth is 11.09.1998. After the death
of the father of the petitioner, mother of the petitioner approached the
respondent-department for appointing the petitioner, however, she was
advised that she should approach the department when the petitioner
completes the age of 18 years. The petitioner attained the age of 18
years in the month of September, 2016 and also passed matriculation in
the year 2016 and consequently, the mother of the petitioner
approached the respondent-department for considering the claim of the
petitioner by submitting application on 05.01.2017 for giving
employment to her son i.e. the present petitioner on compassionate
grounds and since no action was taken on the said application,
therefore, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 18.12.2017, through
his counsel but to no avail. It is further averred that during this period
30 other persons have been appointed on compassionate grounds vide
office order dated 31.03.2016 and thereafter on 10.06.2016 other 39
persons have been appointed on compassionate basis, however, claim
of the petitioner has not been considered. Hence, the present writ
petition.
3. On issuance of notice of motion, written statement has
been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, wherein it has been
stated that at the time of death of father of the petitioner, policy issued
vide Circular No.03/2010 dated 07.06.2010 (Annexure R4/1) was in
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059815
CWP-20372 of 2018
operation, whereby dependents of deceased employee were given right
to choose between employment or solatium. It was further clarified in
the said circular that the decision shall be final and cannot be changed
lateron. Said circular was approved by the Board of Directors on
06.07.2010. It is further stated that upon the death of Randhir Singh
(father of the petitioner), Assistant Lineman, working under DS
Division Lehragaga Circle Sangrur, his widow Ramjit Kaur, through
her letter dated 30.11.2011, requested for releasing all service benefits
of her husband. She further applied for solatium amount to the office
of DS Division Lehragaga along with all required documents i.e. form
for compassionate employment/solatium duly filled by Ramjit Kaur,
her affidavit, no objection certificate from other dependents, ration
card, voter card, death certificate etc. In her affidavit, widow of
deceased Randhir Singh, clearly stated about the legal dependants of
her husband and further stated that she is not willing to do job in
Punjab State Power Corporation and wants solatium amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- as per instructions of Punjab State Power Corporation. In
the said affidavit of Ramjit Kaur, widow of deceased employee Randhir
Singh, she has expressly and clearly chosen her right of solatium. It is
further stated that accordingly the case of Ramjit Kaur claiming
solatium was sent by the office of DS Division Lehragaga to higher
authorities for further proceedings. The office of Chief Administrator,
IR, Non Gazetted Section-2, Patiala, had issued office order
No.232/ENG-7(1) dated 10.07.2012 vide which Ramjit Kaur wife of
deceased employee Randhir Singh, Assistant Lineman, was issued
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059815
CWP-20372 of 2018
solatium amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of employment on
compassionate grounds as per instructions of Punjab State Power
Corporation Board. The office of DS Division Lehragaga had issued
cheque No.091042 dated 30.07.2012 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- to
Ramjit Kaur wife of deceased Randhir Singh, Assistant Lineman,
which was credited to her account vide Annexure R4/5. The case of
the deceased employee was dealt with in accordance with the
prevailing instructions at the time of death and hence no fault can be
attributed in the same.
4. Affidavit of Ramjit Kaur (Annexure R-4/4) reads as under:
"Affidavit
I Ramjit Kaur widow of Randhir Singh, resident of Village
Falera, Tehsil Lehra, District Sangrur (Punjab) do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare that: -
1. That Randhir Singh S/o Karnail Singh was my
legally husband who served under Sub-division
Suburban PSPCL Lehragaga as Assistant Lineman.
2. That my husband expired on 04.11.2011.
3. That I am the legally wife of my husband. I have
neither solemnised second marriage nor arranged
any Kerewa marriage.
4. That I had not taken benefit of my husband service,
if had taken then I will be self-responsible for it.
5. That my husband's legally dependents are as below.
Name Relation Date of Birth
(1) Smt. Jangeer Kaur Mother ................
(2) Ramjit Kaur Wife 03/05/1973
(3) Manpreet Singh Son 11/09/1998
6. That the benefit payable to my husband, will be paid
to me and I am not willing to do job in Board.
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059815
CWP-20372 of 2018
7. That I will oblige all the regulations and rules of the
Board.
8. That I am not doing job in Government/Non
Government institution.
9. That I belong to Sikh caste.
10. That I am not willing to do job. I will be paid
solatium amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.
Sd/-
Deponent
(Ramjit Kaur)
That the contents of my affidavit are true and
correct. No part of it is false and nothing material has
been concealed therein.
Sd/-
Deponent
(Ramjit Kaur)"
5. Once the mother of the petitioner has already availed the
benefit of solatium on 30.07.2012, the petitioner cannot claim
compassionate appointment at this point of time. It is settled law that
the purpose of compassionate appointment is to overcome immediate
financial crisis that may occur due to death of only bread earner of
family. Further the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted at this
belated stage after 13 years as admittedly, the father of the petitioner
died on 04.11.2011.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State
of Haryana, 1994(4) SCC 138 has held as under: -
"6. For these very reasons, the compassionate
employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a
reasonable period which must be specified in the rules.
The consideration for such employment is not a vested
right which can be exercised at any time in future. The
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059815
CWP-20372 of 2018
object being to enable the family to get over the financial
crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole
breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be
claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after
the crisis is over."
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the similar
issue in Union of India and another v. B. Kishore, 2011(3) S.C.T. 18
has held as under: -
"6. In State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, 2010(4) S.C.T.
77 : (2010) 11 SCC 661, elucidating the nature of the
scheme of compassionate appointments this Court
observed :-
"It is now well settled that appointment on
compassionate grounds is not a source of
recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to
the general rule that recruitment to public services
should be on the basis of merit, by an open
invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible
persons to participate in the selection process. The
dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not
have any special claim or right to employment,
except by way of the concession that may be
extended by the employer under the rules or by a
separate scheme, to enable the family of the
deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The
claim for compassionate appointment is therefore
traceable only to the scheme framed by the
employer for such employment and there is no right
whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment
under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is
in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It
follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished,
any pending application seeking appointment under
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059815
CWP-20372 of 2018
the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved.
The mere fact that an application was made when
the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a
right in favour of the applicant."
8. To the same effect is the judgment of a Division Bench of
this Court in Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India and others, 2011(4)
S.C.T. 218, wherein it has been held as under: -
"4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of
the considered view that the view taken by the Tribunal
does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting
interference of this Court. The Tribunal has rightly
observed that the compassionate appointment is not a
mode of entry into service but it is only to help the
surviving members of the family to overcome sudden
financial crisis created by the sudden death of the bread
winner, as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the cases of National Hydro v. Nanak Chand, 2004(4)
S.C.T. 724 : (2004) 12 SCC 487 : [2005 (1) SLR 1 (SC)]
and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Smt. A. Radhika
Thirumalal 1997(1) S.C.T. 329 : 1996 (9) SC 197 : [1996
(6) SLR 21 (SC)]. Such an appointment cannot be secured
as a matter of right as it is an exception to Articles 14 and
16(1) of the Constitution. The father of the applicant-
petitioner expired on 19.7.2004. It cannot be concluded
that the situation created by his death is still prevailing
and continuing. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of
Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. 481 2009(3)
S.C.T. 629 : 2009(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.)
563 : [2010 (1) SLR 261 (SC)] and Mumtaz Yunus
Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, 2008(2) S.C.T. 669 :
2008(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 263 : (2008)11
SCC 384 : [2008 (3) SLR 782 (SC)], has held that
compassionate appointment after lapse of number of years
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059815
CWP-20372 of 2018
is impermissible. There is, thus, no merit in the instant
petition and accordingly the same is dismissed."
9. In view of the above, the present petition is hereby
dismissed with no order as to costs.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
26.04.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
