Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 29 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058373
CWP-14132-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058373
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
251
CWP-14132-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.04.2024
Paramjit Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of reply dated
24.09.2018, directing the respondents to give the appointment on compassionate
ground on regular basis in the regular pay scale from the date of his initial
appointment.
2. Learned counsel restricts his prayer with regard to the petitioner
having been appointed on contingent basis/compassionate grounds instead of
offering regular appointment on the unfortunate demise of his father, who was
working as police constable. Though the petitioner was granted regularisation vide
order dated 21.09.2013, however, was required to be appointed on regular basis
from the date of his original appointment. He further submits that his case is
squarely covered by the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of Punjab and Others in CWP-17326-2009, decided
on 05.09.2011, against which no LPA was filed, which reads thus:
"The petitioner seeks a direction for his appointment as a
Sweeper (Safai Sewak) on compassionate ground on regular
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058373
CWP-14132-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058373
- 2-
basis.
The case unfolds the unfortunate story as to how the
persons belonging to poorest section of the society are
exploited by the Police Authorities under the garb of self styled
executive instructions issued by the Head of the Department.
This Court has not come across a single instance where a
senior police officer dies in harness and his dependent family
member is offered appointment on daily wages or contingent
basis only. Infact, best of the posts are made available to them,
many a times by overlooking the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of
Haryana' 1994 C.S.Cases (SC) 138. On the other hand, when
an occasion to appoint of a Class-III and Class-IV employee
arises, all the Rules and Instructions are invoked to scuttle the
employment. The instant case is also no exception. The only
plea taken in the reply filed by the respondents to deny regular
appointment to the petitioner is that he agreed for his
appointment on 'contingent paid post. How a son of a poor
sweeper, who himself is running from pillar to post for his
employment as a Sweeper on compassionate grounds, would
understand the implications of phrases like 'contingent paid
post, is beyond one's comprehension.
The fact of the matter is that the father of the petitioner
was a Sweeper in the police Department and he unfortunately
died while in service on 03.01.2006 leaving behind his wife,
three sons and two daughters. The petitioner applied for his
employment on compassionate ground under the ex-gratia
policy and his turn having come as per the priority list that he
has been appointed against a vacant post but as a 'temporary
contingent paid' Sweeper. The aggrieved petitioner has
approached this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the appointment of the
petitioner as a sweeper on 'temporary contingent paid' basis is
wholly unfair, unjust and per se arbitrary. The solitary object
of giving employment under the ex-gratia policy is to secure
the source of livelihood for the family of the deceased
employee. If a sword of temporary/contingent paid assignment
keeps on hanging on the neck of the petitioner it is obvious that
the very object behind the policy shall be frustrated. The non-
application of mind by the authorities is further writ large as
despite availability of a regular vacant post, the petitioner has
been offered appointment on 'temporary contingent basis'.
For the reasons above stated, the writ petition is allowed.
It is directed that the petitioner shall be treated to have been
appointed as sweeper on regular basis w.e.f. the date of his
original appointment with all the consequential benefits. The
petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of Rs. 10000/- to be
paid by the respondents.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058373
CWP-14132-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058373
- 3-
3. Learned State counsel has been unable to controvert the factual
position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or
cite any contrary law.
4. In wake of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms
of the judgment passed in Sanjeev Kumar (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
29.04.2024
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
