Punjab-Haryana High Court
Simranjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 26 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057368
CWP-800-2021(O&M) 2024:PHHC:057368
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
228 CWP-800-2021(O&M)
Date of decision: 26.04.2024
Simranjeet Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amarpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral)
1. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated
24.09.2018 and directing the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to
the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel contends that the father of the petitioner, who was
working as Sub Inspector in Punjab Police, unfortunately passed away on
24.08.2016, during the period of extension in service. The claim of compassionate
appointment of the petitioner was rejected on the premise that the instructions
dated 27.12.2016 were withdrawn vide letter dated 29.03.2017. 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 followed,
as per judgment of this Court in Krishna Kumari vs. State of Haryana and
others, 2012 (2) SCT 736. The compliance to the judgment in Ajay Kumar
(supra) was made during the pendency of COCP-2893-2020 filed, which were
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057368
CWP-800-2021(O&M) 2024:PHHC:057368
disposed of on the statement made by the learned State counsel that the petitioner
had been granted appointment on compassionate grounds. The operative portion of
Ajay 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 aforesaid policy relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner clearly states that the same
has 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 on the merits of the case, the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to
pass a fresh appropriate order by according 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 present petition is disposed of in terms of
the judgment passed in Ajay Kumar (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
26.04.2024 JUDGE
Aman Dua
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
2 of 2
