Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neeraj Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 13 November, 2024
CWP-29725-2024 1
2024: PHHC 150560 eee :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.128 CWP-29725-2024
Date of Decision: 13.11.2024
Neeraj Kumar .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA
Present: Mr. Ashwarya Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana.
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari
quashing the order dated 18.01.2024, Annexure P-8, whereby the petitioner's
claim for regularization in service on the post of Library Attendant has been
rejected.
2. Briefly, as per facts apparent on record, the petitioner's father
was working as Library Restorer in the third respondent/College receiving
grant-in-aid from the Government. He unfortunately met with a fatal road
accident, and expired on 28.03.2016. The petitioner being his younger son
requested the College Management to accommodate him in service on
compassionate grounds. As per resolution of the College Advisory Board,
dated 20.04.2016, he was offered appointment as Library Attendant under
Self Finance Scheme (SFS) in the pay grade of €5200-20200+1800 (AGP).
Accepting the terms of appointment, he joined service on 19.05.2016, and
has been working as such ever since.
2.1. Later, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition,
MANINDER
[attest fo the aecuracy CWP No.20683 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated
autnenticity ol Is
order/judgment.
CWP-29725-2024 2
2024 PHHC-150506 #8 = o
ee
12.09.2022, with a direction to the third respondent to consider and decide
his representation in accordance with law. The representation was,
accordingly, decided vide impugned order, dated 18.01.2024, recording that
at the time of granting ex gratia compassionate appointment to the
petitioner, there was no provision for granting a regular ex gratia
compassionate appointment. Even at present, there is no notification,
instruction or guideline of the Government or any competent authority vide
which any appointment made under SFS can by regularised, and regular
scale of pay can be given to the person appointed under SFS. The order also
gives an assurance, if Government issues any such notification or scheme in
future, the benefit will be extended to the concerned employees, including
the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned
order has been wrongly passed, as the petitioner was entitled to
regularisation in service. He has relied upon a judgment, dated 05.05.2015,
rendered by this Court in CWP No.23906 of 2011 titled Vikas Sharma v.
State of Haryana and another.
4. Heard.
5. As per undisputed facts on record, the petitioner sought
compassionate appointment on his father's demise, and was offered a post of
Library Attendant under SFS on the terms and conditions stipulated in the
letter of appointment. He accepted the same and joined service on
19.05.2016; no grievance in this regard was raised by him. Learned counsel
has not been able to refer to any Government policy or decision of the
College Management which entitles the petitioner to regularisation in
service. Therefore, there is no basis for the claim raised by him.
5.1. Further, the judgment in Vikas Sharma case (supra) relied upon
2024.11.25 18:01 by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the
I attest to the accuracy a
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
MANINDER
2024.11.25 18:01
CWP-29725-2024 3
instant case, since the petitioner therein was given compassionate
appointment as Peon on adhoc basis. Thereafter, the management vide
resolution dated 06.08.2024 resolved to appoint him as Peon on sanctioned
vacant post, subject to approval of the Higher Education Commissioner. The
Commissioner, however, did not approve the appointment since there was no
vacant available post. Under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the
Dependant of Deceased Haryana Government Employees Rules, 2003, only
five per cent of the vacant posts could be diverted for compassionate
appointment, and the post against which the petitioner therein was seeking
appointment did not fall within the five per cent proportion. Under these
facts and circumstances, this Court had directed the Commissioner to
approve his appointment as Peon against a sanctioned vacant post on regular
basis with effect from the date of Management's resolution. Whereas, in the
case at hand, the petitioner has not been recommended to be appointed
against a sanctioned post; instead, the Management itself has resolved to
appoint him on SFS post. Accepting the appointment as well as its terms and
conditions, he joined the service as well.
6. In view of the reasons aforementioned, there is no ground to
entertain the petition, and it stands dismissed in limine.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA)
JUDGE
13.11.2024
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
