Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Alias Dakhan vs Secretary Local Bodies & Anr on 6 August, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100618
RSA-861-2014
-1-
223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-861-2014
Date of decision:-06.08.2024
Raj alias Dakhan
...Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Local Bodies, Municipality, Punjab, Chandigarh and another
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present : Mr.Vinay Bajaj, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Puru Jarewal, AAG, Punjab
for respondent No.1.
Mr.M.S. Batth, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. Plaintiff - appellant is in second appeal before this Court
challenging the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below.
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff - appellant is that her father
Babu Ram was serving as a Sweeper with defendant - respondent No.2
and unfortunately expired in harness on 29.11.2005. After his death, she
applied for appointment on compassionate basis. It has been averred that
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100618
RSA-861-2014
the plaintiff was dependent upon her father and her husband was not
maintaining her. She had been taking care of her parents. It had been
also submitted that her mother as well as sister had given affidavits to
the effect that they do not have any objection in case plaintiff is given an
appointment.
3. Upon notice, defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex-
parte and suit was contested by the defendant No.2 by filing a written
statement wherein besides taking some objections regarding
maintainability etc., the claim was denied by relying upon the scheme
for compassionate appointment 2002, Ex.D1. Defendant No.2 took a
stand that the plaintiff does not fall within the definition of dependent as
per the scheme. Plaintiff filed replication controverting the stand of
defendant No.2. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were
framed. After the parties led evidence, Trial Court by judgment and
decree dated 18.04.2012 dismissed the suit. Plaintiff remained
unsuccessful in the first appeal, which was dismissed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Bathinda by judgment dated 28.05.2013,
leading to the institution of the present second appeal.
4. Counsel for the appellant has urged that the plaintiff -
appellant being the married daughter of the deceased cannot be excluded
from the definition of dependent under the scheme of 2002. He has
placed reliance upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in
State of Punjab & another Versus Amarjit Kaur, 2023 (1) Law Herald
352. He submits that SLP (C) No. 9356/2023 filed against the said
judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18.10.2023.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100618
RSA-861-2014
5. Counsel representing the respondents have opposed the
appeal and have supported the judgments and decrees passed by the
Courts below.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions, besides examining the record with their able
assistance.
7. In Amarjit Kaur's case (supra), the question for
consideration was as to whether a married daughter is liable to be
excluded from consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds
under the policy/relevant rules. The compassionate appointment policy,
2002, Ex.D1 came up for interpretation before the Division Bench and it
was held that the exclusion of a married daughter is arbitrary. While
modifying the judgment of the writ Court, the Division Bench has held
as under:
"25. We are of the considered opinion that the exclusion at the
outset in the case of a married daughter is apparently arbitrary.
As noticed above, the eligibility aspect and the fact that she may
be dependent upon the deceased employee would be subject
matter of consideration by the competent authority as per the
scheme of the Government. The rejection at the threshold only on
the ground of gender would be violative of Articles 14 & 15 of the
Constitution of India since in contrast similarly situated sibling
like the son who may be married and living separately would
come within the zone of consideration since in his case, under
Clause (b) of Note-I, it is not that his consideration is excluded
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100618
RSA-861-2014
being the married son. The policy also further provides that under
Clause 6, the eligibility is to be seen and therefore, being
excluded by the definition of dependent family member, married
daughters are kept out of the zone of consideration of eligibility.
Same would thus mitigate against the factor that under Clause 14,
an undertaking is also to be given that the family is to be
maintained and the property is to be looked after of the deceased
Government servant and the appointment can be terminated.
Thus, a married daughter is shut out from even applying as she
would not come within the zone of consideration whether she is
dependent or not but exclusion is only on account of gender and it
would be patently discriminatory. The deceased Government
employee might have only been blessed with daughters and a
widow who is not in a position to take up employment. Merely
because the daughters are married would not exclude them from
the zone of consideration as they would be in a position to help
the widow if they are given employment keeping in view the
undertaking which is also to be taken from the said applicant on
account of favourable consideration."
8. Adverting to the facts of the present case, an examination of
the judgments under appeal show that the sole ground, which has
weighed with the Courts is that the plaintiff - appellant was a married
daughter of the deceased and not dependent upon the deceased. The
finding recorded by the Courts below is contrary to the law settled by
the Division Bench of this Court and therefore cannot be sustained.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100618
RSA-861-2014
Resultantly, the instant appeal merits acceptance.
9. For the afore-going reasons, judgments and decrees passed
by the Courts below are set aside. Suit is decreed to the effect that the
application of the plaintiff - appellant for appointment on ex gratia basis
shall be considered by defendant - respondent No.2 within a period of
four months from the communication of a copy of this judgment.
9. Appeal is disposed.
10. Pending application, if any, is also disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
06.08.2024 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
