High Court
Case Details
CWP(cid:5)1438 381(cid:5)2017 (cid:5)1(cid:5) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:3) (cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:20)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:11) 222 Inderjeet Sin Singh CWP(cid:5)14381(cid:5)2017 (O & M) Date of decision: 20.02.2025 ....Petitioner State of Pun unjab and others Versus ...Respondents CORAM: H
Legal Reasoning
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN AN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate an Mr. Vipul Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. and Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. (cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:3) (cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:5) (cid:3) 1. Prayer made in the present pet etition is for quashing the order dated 14.11 .11.2014, Annexure P(cid:5)6, as also also the one passed in appeal rejecting the the same on 22.03.2017, conveyed ed on 05.04.2017, Annexures P(cid:5) 6 and P(cid:5)1 17, respectively, vide which h claim of the petitioner for compassiona onate appointment has been reje ejected on the ground that he having not a t applied within the time. 2. The father of the petitioner wa was working as Head Teacher in Govt. Prima mary School, village Ghamewal, l, Block Sidhwan Bet(cid:5)II, Tehsil Jagroan, and and unfortunately passed away d . during service on 26.10.2007. The petition ioner having date of birth of 16 16.08.2009, attained the age of majority on on 16.08.2009 and passed his mat atriculation/10+2 in 2007/2009, PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.02.21 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP(cid:5)1438 381(cid:5)2017 (cid:5)2(cid:5) graduation n in Arts in 2015 and also qua qualified Elementary Teacher’s Training C Course, vide certificate dated ed 29.05.2014, issued by the Education D Department. The impugned order der dated 14.11.2014 reveals that claim for co compassionate appointment has be been declined on account of the fact that the he eligible member of the family h y had not applied in time. 3. Learned counsel has drawn the the attention of this Court to the letter dated ed 16.12.2014, Annexure P(cid:5)8, se sent by the District Education Officer (Ele Elementary Education), Ludhian iana, to the District Education Officer (Sec Secondary Education), Ludhiana, a, relevant paras whereof read thus: “It is relevant to employee had died on 2 sent case to the B.P.E.O 28 dated 07.03.2008 for t copy of main letter of of of noting of this office noting of this office and applicant, earlier he has Thereafter this case was SLA vide letter No. 759 Sidhwan Bet(cid:5)2. (Copy B.P.E.O to this office again started dealing 23.08.2010. (Copy of the Therefore, it is w applied for appointmen fulfillment of qualificatio clerk, the applicant had SLA. Therefore while re of the applicant may be for the post of SLA.” to mention here that deceased n 26.10.2007. The applicant has .O Sidhwan Bet(cid:5)2 vide letter No. or the appointment of clerk. (The office of B.P.E.O and the copy ce is annexed herewith). As per and letter dated 07.03.08 of the as applied for the post of clerk. as applied for the appointment of 59 dated 18.08.2010 of B.Ρ.Ε.Ο y of letter numbered sent by e is annexed). This office had this case on dated g with the noting is annexed.) written that the applicant had ent in time but due to non ation for the appointment of the ad again applied for the post of reconsidering the case, the case be reconsidered sympathetically 4. The petitioner filed an appeal b al bringing the aforesaid facts to the notice o e of the Principal Secretary, Schoo hool Education, Annexure P(cid:5)10, PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.02.21 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP(cid:5)1438 381(cid:5)2017 (cid:5)3(cid:5) which was as also rejected, vide order dated ted 05.04.2017, Annexure P(cid:5)13, without any ny referring to the aforesaid aspe pects brought out. Reliance is placed on th the judgment in (cid:13)(cid:26) !(cid:31)(cid:31)"(cid:3) #$%(cid:26) %(cid:26) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) &’(cid:22)(cid:3) (cid:3) ((cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:29)(cid:31)(cid:3)(cid:28))(cid:3)(cid:13)$(cid:27)*(cid:26)+(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:27)!(cid:3) (cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:21) CW CWP(cid:5)25385(cid:5)2013, decided on 0 03.03.2017, against which no challenge w was made, wherein the son was m minor at the time of death of his mother, cov overs the case of the petitioner on on all fours, which learned State counsel des despite best efforts unable to co controvert regards the factual position and and draw out any distinctive as aspects in the aforementioned judgment or or cite any contrary law, relevant p nt paras whereof read thus: s mother expired on 25.1. 2002 “8. The petitioner’s m of 8.8.1996 was prevalent. This on which date the policy of amended on 21.11.2002 . In policy was subsequently a of 1996 it was stipulated “that in paragraph 2 of the policy of nt member in the family of the cases where no dependent mployee becomes eligible for deceased government emp ent within the prescribed period compassionate appointment te of death due to their being of 2 years from the date r compassionate appointment in underage, the request for c ithin a period of 6 months after such cases can be made wit ember in the family becomes any of the dependent mem e appointment.” eligible for compassionate a , policy regarding compassionate Even otherwise, po 9. the year 21.112002 was n in framed appointment 3.7.2008 by adding para 13( a), subsequently amended on 3 which reads as under; – “Provided that in the government employee children, who are studyin employee and are not qu the government and the join the government job allowed to apply for co the competent authority, from the date of attain qualifications government’. the case where the deceased e leaves behind his/her minor ying at that time of death of the qualified for an employment in he spouse is not in a position to job, a dependent child may be compassionate appointment by ity, within a period of one year aining the age and educational in C or D appointment for a PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.02.21 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP(cid:5)1438 381(cid:5)2017 (cid:5)4(cid:5) ructions were also extended and The benefit of these instruc (cid:5)time measure to old cases. It made applicable as a one(cid:5) an application for employment was also decided that an months from the date of issue of could be made within 6 mo lready made.(emphasis added). these instructions, if not alre ing of the above said provisions 10. A conjoint reading sion that a dependent child could would lead to the conclusion appointment to the competent apply for compassionate a d of one year from the date of authority, within a period o cational qualifications for a C or attaining the age and educat ment and such a benefit was also D appointment in governme who apply within 6 months of extended to those person w the 2002 policy i.e by 2.2.2009. the amendment made to the ds, a direction was issued to On humanitarian grounds, pplication was received within 6 consider all cases where app eived. months, if not already receiv father had already applied as far The petitioner’s fa 11. eeping a post reserved for his back as 10.6.2002 for kee oner on attaining majority and minor child. The petitione plied on 8.12.2009 with all the completing his 10+2 applie n the ground that the application requisite papers. Denial on t one year on of the death of the was not preferred within on vant is unsustainable, in view of deceased government servan 1996, and the amendment made the fact that the policy of 19 itself permitted an underage to the policy of 2002 it government employee to apply dependent of a deceased go r appointment on compassionate to competent authority for a bility to apply for a class C or D ground on attaining eligibili raised that the petitioner ought to post. Even the argument rais tely on completing his 10th have applied immediately sic qualification for group “C” is examination since the basic n argument only noted to be only matriculation, is an lready been made for as far back rejected. A request had alrea ing one post reserved for the as June 2002 for keeping nnot be said that there is a delay petitioner, therefore it canno epartment concerned seeking in approaching the Dep is ent. Once an application compassionate appointmen ondent State cannot be permitted already pending, the respond hyper technical ground. It is to reject the claim on hy the to act fairly state expected of a welfare cial legislation. implementation of beneficia impugned order dated the the 12. 4) is not liable to be sustained 31.5.2013 (Annexure P14) The respondents are directed to and is hereby quashed. Th he petitioner for compassionate reconsider the case of the Accordingly, in PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.02.21 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP(cid:5)1438 381(cid:5)2017 (cid:5)5(cid:5) appointment within a period certified copy of this order. 13. Writ petition stands allow llowed accordingly.” iod of 3 months from receipt of 5. In wake of the above, the pres resent petition is disposed of in terms of (cid:13)(cid:26) (cid:13)(cid:26) !(cid:31)(cid:31)"(cid:3)#$%(cid:26) (cid:23)’$" (cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:22)(cid:3) 20.02.2025 parveen kumar (cid:23)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:6) Whethe Whethe ther speaking/reasoned : Yes / No : Yes / No ther reportable PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.02.21 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.