Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 20 November, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152549
CWP No. 3441 of 2019 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(225) CWP No. 3441 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.11.2024
Rajneet Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Virinder Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the prayer of the petitioner is for
quashing the order dated 17.03.2017 (Annexure P-3) by which, the claim of
the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected only
on the ground that the deceased employee had solemnized more than one
marriage, which is illegal.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that
the petitioner is the daughter of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh born out of the first
marriage and was very much entitled for the grant of compassionate
appointment after the death of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, who died while in service
and merely that during the subsistence of the first marriage, Sh. Mukhtiar
Singh solemnized the second marriage, cannot be a ground to deny a
legitimate benefit for which the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152549
3. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply,
wherein, they have stated that once, it has come on record that Sh. Mukhtiar
Singh, the deceased had solemnized two marriages, which is an illegal act on
his part, the benefit of compassionate appointment was declined to the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are
children who are born out of the second marriage and are also legitimate to
be considered for appointment, hence, the petitioner's claim has rightly been
rejected. The second argument being raised is that the application for the
grant of compassionate appointment was filed after four years of the death
and the same was liable to be rejected.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. Once, the petitioner is the daughter born out of the first
marriage, merely that the deceased employee had solemnized second
marriage during the subsistence of first marriage cannot be a ground to deny
the benefit, which the legal heirs of the deceased employee are entitled for
including the compassionate appointment. Even if, there are other children
out of the second marriage, the respondents were bound to consider the claim
of all and should have given appointment to the one who is most suitable
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case including the age and
other factors.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has already placed on record a
compromise between the parties, a copy of which has been appended as
Annexure P-4 that no children born out of the second marriage are claiming
the benefit of compassionate appointment. That being so, the respondents
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152549
were under obligation to grant the consideration for the claim of the
petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment.
7. The second argument which is being raised by learned counsel
for the respondents is that the claim was submitted after a period of four
years. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 17.03.2017 (Annexure P-
3) would show that the same is not the ground taken to deny the said benefit.
As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
No. 1297 of 1977 titled as Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief
Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, decided on 02.12.1977, any
objection not taken in the impugned order, cannot be made a ground to deny
the benefit. The relevant paragraph 8 of the said judgment is as under :-
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a
statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds,
its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and
cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit
or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by
the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here
draw attention to the observations of Bose J. In Gordhandas
Bhanji case :
"Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory
authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations
subsequently given by the officer making the order of what
he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended
to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant
to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting
and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and
must be construed objectively with reference to the
language used in the order itself".
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152549
8. Keeping in view the above, the impugned order dated
17.03.2017 (Annexure P-3) is set-aside. The respondents are directed to
consider the claim of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate
appointment keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned here-in-
before and the said consideration be finalized within a period of eight weeks
of the receipt of copy of this order.
9. Petition is allowed in above terms.
10. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
November 20, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
