Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kaur vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & ... on 15 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037693
2024:PHHC:037693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-7797-2017
Reserved on : 06.03.2024
Pronounced on : 15.03.2024
Sandeep Kaur .....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Advocate with
Ms. Priyanka Goyal, Advocate for the respondents.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioner, who is widow of the deceased employee
namely Sh. Kasturi Singh, who has rendered services with respondents-
PSPCL, has approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ
petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a
writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.08.2016 (Annexure P-
8), vide which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment has been rejected, further a writ of mandamus has been
sought for directing the respondents to treat the husband of the
petitioner as regular employee and grant compassionate appointment to
the petitioner and to regularize the services of the husband of the
petitioner on completion of three years of service and to grant family
pension to the petitioner and release arrears thereof along with interest.
2. The brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are
that in the month of January 2011, the respondents vide advertisement
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037693
CRA No.267/11, advertised 5000 posts of Lineman. However, the said
selection was challenged in CWP No.4881 of 2011 and this Court vide
interim order dated 09.11.2011 granted permission for recruitment of
1000 Lineman and subsequently, vide judgment dated 27.11.2013
(Annexure P-1), the writ petition was disposed of. The husband of the
petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Lineman on contract
basis, vide appointment order dated 23.11.2011 for 02 years
commencing from the date of joining. It is the case of the petitioner that
although the word 'contract' was mentioned in the appointment letter of
her husband, however, the said appointment was regular for all intents
and purposes and consequently, the husband of the petitioner joined as
such on 06.12.2011 after going through a medical examination as
required under the terms of the appointment. After his joining, he along
with 40 SSA's (Sub Station Attendants) completed two weeks class
room induction training from 13.02.2012 to 25.02.2012 at T.T.I.,
P.S.P.C.L., Patiala and they were further directed to join their duties and
their posting station for carrying their job training from 27.02.2012 to
07.04.2012 and after completing the said training, husband of the
petitioner started serving the respondent-Corporation as Lineman.
Unfortunately, he died on 07.12.2014 leaving behind the petitioner
(wife), minor daughter and old aged parents, who all were fully
dependent upon him and after his death, his family was in penury. The
petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate
ground which was rejected by respondent No.2 vide impugned order
dated 05.08.2016, on the ground that there is provision of giving
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037693
compassionate appointment only to the dependents of regular
employees.
3. On issuance of notice of motion, written statement has
been filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that the
husband of the petitioner was recruited as Lineman against
advertisement CRA No.267/11 which was initially for 02 years and
thereafter, extended for 01 more year on the same terms and conditions.
The husband of the petitioner was not a regular employee and only
continued for 03 years on contract basis, whereas the other employees
were regularized w.e.f. 01.07.2015, on completion of 03 years of service
but since the husband of the petitioner was no more in service as on
01.07.2015, therefore, her claim for compassionate appointment has
rightly been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband
of the petitioner was appointed as Lineman after following the due
procedure of selection and the said appointment was regular for all
intents and purposes and the word 'contract' in the appointment letter
was a misnomer. To buttress the said argument, he has referred to clause
2, 3(ii) & (v), 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of the appointment letter, which reads as
under :-
"2) i) You will submit Medical Fitness Certificate issued by
concerned Civil Surgeon before joining the
assignment. You will join your contractual duties
within 30 days of issue of this letter failing which
your candidature will be treated as cancelled.
ii) You will submit requisite affidavit duly attested by
Executive Magistrate to the effect that.
a) You have never been convicted for any offence
by any Court of law.
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037693
b) You are not a dismissed employee of my
Government/Board Corporation etc.
c) You are not having more than one living
spouse.
3)ii) The statutory deduction as per relevant rules and
regulations of government shall be made from your
monthly remunerations.
v) EPF/ESI contribution as per provisions of the
EPF/ESI Act will be applicable.
4) During your contract period you can be deputed to
other Sub-Divisions/Sub Stations as SSA/Locations
of PSPCL/PSTCL anywhere in Punjab as per
requirement/work related to PSPCL/PSTCL.
7) You are governed by PSPCL/PSTCL regulations.
Your services can be placed in PSPCL/PSTCL or
any other organization such BBMB etc. against the
vacant posts of Lineman or SSA or any other post
deemed fit by management.
8) You shall undergo training of 4 months in various
organization/installations of PSPCL/PSTCL and in
Technical Training Institute of PSPCL at Patiala or
other places. On successful completion of training of
4 months, you shall be allowed to continue for the
balance contract period. In case your work &
conduct during training period is not found
satisfactory, your contract shall be terminated
immediately.
9) During the period of your contract, you will devote
yourself wholly to the Corporation or its successor
companies and not secure any other job either full
time or part time for remuneration or on honorary
basis.
13) You will also submit your consent through Affidavit
attested by the Executive Magistrate thereby
agreeing to the above mentioned terms & conditions
of the contract and you will not challenge any terms
and conditions of the offer of hiring your services as
Lineman on contract basis including salary, service
conditions, rules and regulations in comparison to
corporation regular employees in any court of law."
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037693
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
services of all other Linemen appointed in pursuance to advertisement
CRA No.267/11, who have completed three years of service on contract
basis, have already been regularized w.e.f. 01.07.2015 and since the
husband of the petitioner has completed 03 years service prior to his
death, therefore, his services were liable to be regularized. In support of
his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court
passed in Reena Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others : 2015(4) LLJ
293 (Annexure P-9) and CWP No.11530 of 2003 titled as 'Chameli
Devi Vs. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited through its
Managing Director, Sector 6, Panchkula and another' decided on
21.03.2012 (Annexure P-14).
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, on the
basis of averments made in the written statement, submits that since the
husband of the petitioner died before 01.07.2015, though completed 03
years service on contract basis, is not entitled for deemed regularization
since he was working on contract basis and there is no provision of
grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of contractual
employees, therefore, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been
rejected by the respondents.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant record with their able assistance.
8. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was
appointed as Lineman on contract basis for a period of two years vide
appointment letter dated 23.11.2011. The said appointment was made
after following the due process of selection and although the same has
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037693
been termed as contract, however, it was made in conformity with the
provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the posts
were advertised, applications were invited, the claim of various
candidates were considered and thereafter, the selection was finalized.
The terms and conditions of the appointment letter, which have been
reproduced above, also suggest that it is not mere a contractual
appointment.
9. Be that as it may, the services of all other Linemen, who
were appointed along with the petitioner in pursuance to advertisement
CRA No.267/11, have already been regularized on completion of 03
years of service w.e.f. 01.07.2015 and since unfortunately, the husband
of the petitioner died in harness on 07.12.2014, his services could not be
regularized. The object of the decision of the Board of Directors to
regularize the services of the Lineman appointed in pursuance to the
advertisement No.CRA-267/11 was that whosoever has completed more
than 03 years of service, his service be regularized w.e.f. 11.07.2015.
Admittedly, the petitioner has completed more than 03 years services
prior to his death and can be extended the benefit of regularization, as
have been granted to the other similarly situated employees, who were
appointed along with the petitioner.
10. In Reena Devi's case (supra), similar claim has been
accepted by this Court wherein a widow was claiming financial
assistance from the respondent-State of Haryana under the Haryana
Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Government
Employees Rules, 2006. The said judgment reads as under :-
"2. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the facts,
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037693
which are borne out from the record of the case and which
have emerged from the arguments raised at the bar are that
the petitioner's husband Late Shri Ram Niwas, after going
through the regular selection process conducted by the
Haryana Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred
to as - the Commission), through appointment letter dated
10.02.2012 (Annexure P-1), was appointed as a Driver
(Heavy Transport Vehicle) on contract/daily wages basis.
After going through a medical examination, as required
under the terms of his appointment, he joined the services
of the respondents on 22.02.2012. Unfortunately, he
expired in harness on 21.03.2013. His death, spiralled his
family in financial constraints, which led to the application
by the petitioner - his widow, for the grant of financial
relief under the 2006 Rules. The application filed by her
was rejected on the basis of Memo dated 20.07.2011 issued
by the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana to the
Director General, State Transport, Haryana, wherein it
was stipulated that the financial assistance under the 2006
Rules was to be granted only to the regular employees.
3. In support of his case, counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon a decision of this Court in C.W.P. No. 5593 of
2011 - Kelo Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, decided
on 07.02.2013, wherein, after setting aside Memo dated
20.07.2011, the petitioner therein, who was identically
placed as the petitioner, was held entitled to the grant of
ex-gratia assistance under the 2006 Rules, by holding as
under :-
"14. The appointment letter dated 21.6.2008 in
respect of the husband of the petitioner has been
placed on record at Annexure P1. Undoubtedly, such
appointment letter has been captioned as
appointment as Heavy Vehicle Driver, Class 'B' on
contractual/daily wage basis. A further perusal of
such appointment letter would reveal that the
husband of the petitioner was appointed on a
consolidated salary of Rs.3,000/- per month and
against a temporary post. As per condition No.2 of
such letter of appointment, the husband of the
petitioner was obligated to serve a one month's
notice or salary in lieu thereof in the eventuality of
his choosing to resign from the post. The husband of
the petitioner had also been called upon to obtain a
Medical Fitness Certificate from the Chief Medical
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037693
Officer concerned as required under Rule 3.1 of the
Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-I, applicable to
the Haryana State. It was further stated that such
appointment could be governed by the Haryana
Service Rules, 1995 governing the post of driver. The
admitted position of fact is that prior to joining the
post of driver, the husband of the petitioner was
medically examined and the requisite Medical
Certificate of Fitness on first entry into Government
service as per Rule 3.1 of the Haryana Civil Service
Rules had been issued by the competent Medical
Officer/Civil Surgeon, Jind, Annexure P3.
15. The categorical averments made in the
petition as regards the posts of Drivers having been
duly advertised and the husband of the petitioner
having been duly selected and appointed in
pursuance to a regular selection process have not
been rebutted in the written statement filed on behalf
of the State.
16. Upon the petitioner having submitted a
representation for grant of financial assistance on
the death of her husband, apparently such claim was
processed and a clarification in that regard was
sought by the General Manager, Haryana
Roadways, Jind from the Director General, State
Transport, Haryana vide letter dated 16.11.2010,
appended as Annexure R2 along with the written
statement. Such document would be a clincher in the
present case. A perusal of the same would reveal
that the husband of the petitioner had been selected
and appointed to the post of heavy vehicle driver/bus
driver in pursuance to a process of selection
conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission. As such, for all intents and purposes,
the appointment of the husband of the petitioner
would have to be construed to have been effected on
a regular basis even though against a temporary
post. It is only on account of the operation of the
statutory Rules that the language 'contractual/daily
wage' has been implied in the appointment letter.
Such language cannot work to the detriment of the
present petitioner insofar as her claim for grant of
ex-gratia assistance under the 2006 Rules is
concerned. The service rendered by the late husband
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037693
of the petitioner would certainly fall within the scope
and ambit of the expression 'temporary service'
under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 which, in
turn, would render the petitioner to be eligible for
the grant of financial assistance under the 2006
Rules.
17. Even otherwise, the 2006 Rules have been
promulgated with a laudable object i.e. to provide
assistance to the family of the deceased Government
servant who dies in harness. Such provisions are in
the nature of a beneficial provision and are to be
given a wider meaning while interpreting the same,
rather than a restricted one which would negate the
very object of such provisions. The observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay
Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. The Deputy Director,
ESI Corporation and Anr., 2009(4) SCT 421 would
be most relevant in this behalf which are in the
following terms:
"The Employees State Insurance Act is a
social security legislation and the cannons of
interpreting a social legislation is different
from the cannons of interpretation of taxation
law. The courts must not countenance any
subterfuge which would defeat the provisions
of social legislation and the courts must even,
if necessary, strain the language of the Act in
order to achieve the purpose which the
legislature had in placing this legislation on
the statute book. The Act, therefore, must
receive a liberal construction so as to promote
its objects. This Court, in the case of ESI
Corporation, Hyderabad v. Jayalakshmi
Cotton and Oil Products (P) Ltd., (1980) Lab
IC 1078 has observed that the ESI Act is a
social security legislation and was enacted to
ameliorate the various risks and
contingencies which the employees face while
working in an establishment or factory. It is
thus intended to promote the general welfare
of the workers and, as such, is to be liberally
interpreted."
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037693
18. For the reasons recorded above, the memo
dated 20.7.2011, Annexure P8, is set aside. The
petitioner is held to be entitled for the grant of ex-
gratia assistance under the 2006 Rules in terms of
taking the service rendered by the late husband of
the petitioner i.e. with effect from 26.6.2008 till
5.9.2010 to be 'temporary service'. Consequently, the
petitioner shall be released the admissible financial
assistance as per the 2006 Rules within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order."
4. Having gone through the judgment rendered in Kelo
Devi (supra), I find that it fully covers the case of the
petitioner in her favour.
5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is
allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to ex-gratia
assistance under the 2006 Rules, on account of the service
rendered by her late husband. The admissible financial
assistance, as per the 2006 Rules, be released to the
petitioner within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order."
11. In Chameli Devi's case (supra), the claim for family
pension was denied to the widow, whose husband died after completing
04 years on work charged basis as Auto Mechanic, later came to the
post of Assistant Foreman. In the said judgment it has been held as
under :-
"1. ..........When the claim was made by the petitioner
on the ground that her husband was entitled to be treated
as a regular employee on the basis of the Government
instructions issued on 24.03.1987 that all work-charged
employees working in the Haryana State and who had
completed 4 years of continuous service as on 31.12.1986
should be regularized. Although the petitioner's husband
was not alive as on 31.12.1986, since he had completed 4
years in terms of the Government policy statement, the
petitioner claimed that she was entitled to family pension
by taking the benefit of the policy. The petitioner would
bring support to her case by reference to a judgment of a
Division Bench in Smt. Chameli Versus State of
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037693
Haryana and others in CWP No.13059 of 1997, decided
on 12.01.1999, that the circular issued later would still be
applicable if the number of years of service as work-
charged employee had been completed during the life time
of an employee, who had died prior to the issuance of the
circular. The Division Bench was considering the case of a
similar policy statement issued by the State on 26.10.1983
before which time the employee had died, namely, in
July 1983 in that case."
12. In view of the above, the present petition is partly allowed.
The husband of the petitioner shall be treated as regular employee of the
Corporation on completion of 03 years of service and the petitioner
shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits arising therefrom.
However, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and
family pension is concerned, the respondent-Corporation shall consider
and decide the said claim in accordance with law by passing a speaking
order after granting an opportunity of personal hearing, within a period
of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order
and convey to the petitioner.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
15.03.2024 JUDGE
Kothiyal
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037693
11 of 11
