Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032543
CWP-1638-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:032543
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
115
CWP-1638-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.03.2024
Sukhdev Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present:- Mr. Manoj R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
1. The prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India, is to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, for
quashing the letter dated 31.03.2022, Annexure P-2 vide which the claim for
seeking compassionate appointment has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel submits that the father of the petitioner, who was
working as Constable expired on 14.12.2010 after rendering 18 years of service,
at which time the petitioner was 17 years old. His brother, who was older than
him, applied for compassionate appointment, which came to be rejected on
account of the fact that the documents submitted by him were found to be forged.
It is, therefore, that the petitioner filed an application for him to be considered
against a Class-IV post along with dependent certificate dated 21.12.2018,
Annexure P-1, which has been rejected vide order dated 31.03.2022, Annexure
P-2, solely on the ground of delay of 4 years, 3 months and 24 days. He makes a
reference to the Policy dated 21.11.2002, Annexure P-5, in particular to para 13(a),
wherein, it has been provided that on special approval of the Personnel and
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032543
CWP-1638-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:032543
Finance Department, genuine belated requests can be considered within a period
of 5 years. He also makes a reference to the Instructions dated 03.07.2008,
Annexure P-6, that on humanitarian considerations, it has been decided as a
special one time measure to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to
all old deserving cases. He thus prays for his case to be reconsidered.
3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand is unable to controvert that
the Policy dated 21.11.2002 and Circular dated 03.07.2008 have not been taken
into consideration while passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2022, however,
submits that the application being belatedly filed was rightly rejected.
4. Heard learned counsels on both sides.
5. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer to Circular
dated 03.07.2008, wherein proviso below para 13 (a) was added, which reads thus:
"Provided that in the case where the deceased Government employee
leaves behind his/her minor children, who are studying at the time of
death of the employee and are not qualified for an employment in the
Government and the spouse is not in a position to join the
Government job, a dependent child may be allowed to apply for
compassionate appointment by the Competent Authority, within a
period of one year from the date of attaining the age and educational
qualifications for a Group 'C' or 'D' appointment in Government."
6. The rejection of his claim ignoring the aforesaid Circular/Instructions
and on the lone ground of the application being filed belatedly, reeks of a lack of
discernment and thoughtful consideration by the authorities.
7. The cornerstone of the matter is that on the claim of his elder brother
being rejected, the petitioner sought to seek appointment on compassionate basis
following the demise of his father. Despite being reassured, the Department took a
substantial period of time to arrive at any conclusion. Blatant disregard was given
to the dependent certificate submitted, and the request rejected, citing delay in
applying for the same as the basis. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ganesh
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032543
CWP-1638-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:032543
Shankar Shukla vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1908, wherein, as per
Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Govt. Servants Dying in Harness Rules,
1974. a period of five years had been prescribed for filing the application seeking
compassionate appointment, however since at the time of the death mother of the
appellant, he and his sister were minor, it was held that the rigours of the above
Rule would not be attracted. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:
"9. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed in view of the
peculiar hard facts of the case. The appellant to apply for
compassionate appointment to the State, giving his educational
qualifications within one week. Considering the said application, the
respondent-State will make appointment within next two months."
8. In Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar 2015 (7) SCC 412, as well,
it was observed that if the dependent of the deceased employee was a minor at the
time of death, the offer of appointment on compassionate basis should be kept
open for consideration till the minor attains the age of majority and becomes
eligible for the same and should not have been rejected solely on the ground of
lapse of time or delay.
9. On the aforesaid anvil, the ground of rejection of the claim of the
petitioner is found to be untenable, thus, the impugned order is hereby set aside.
As a corollary thereto, it is just and appropriate to direct the respondents to review
their decision and if found eligible in terms of the policy, offer appointment to
him, within a period of four months, from the date when a web-print of this
judgement is received by the competent authority.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
06.03.2024
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032543
3 of 3
