SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(P&H) 1785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KRISHNA MURARI, ARUN PALLI, JJ.
Gurpreet Kaur - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
LPA No. 738 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided on : 21-08-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate.

The strict construction of compassionate appointment rules and the need for timely application.

Headnote:

Compassionate Appointment - Denial of Appointment to Married Daughter - Punjab State Policy - [FACT OF THE CASE] The appellant-petitioner sought compassionate appointment after her father's death, but her claim was rejected on the ground of being a married daughter. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court upheld the rejection, considering the policy and the appellant's delay in seeking appointment. [ISSUES] The eligibility of a married daughter for compassionate appointment and the timing of eligibility. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court emphasized the strict construction of compassionate appointment rules and the need for timely application. [FINAL DECISION] The court dismissed the appeal, finding no fault with the rejection of the claim.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

CM No.2036-LPA of 2018

1. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 83 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

LPA No. 738 of 2018 (O&M)

This intra-court appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent by the appellant-petitioner is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging the order passed by respondent No.2 herein rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment.

2. The case set up by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition was that her father, who was working as JBT teacher under the Education Department of the Punjab State, died in harness on 17.08.2001. An application seeking compassionate appointment is alleged to have been made on 11.12.2001 which was returned with some objections and was again submitted to the concerned Blok Primary Education Officer on 07.05.2002 after removing objections. It was further pleaded in the writ petition that the matter of compassionate appointment was kept pending and it was only in the year 2012 she was informed that her application is not traceable. Accordingly a fresh application is alleged to have been made by the appellant-petitioner in January, 2012 seeking compassionate appointment on the post of Science Mistress. Again an objection is alleged to have been made with respect to the claim made by the appellant-petitioner on the post of Science Mistress whereupon she is alleged to have given her consent for appointment as a Clerk (Group-C) post. However, vide order dated 04.06.2014, her claim was rejected on the ground that since she is married, hence cannot be treated as dependent upon the deceased employee.

3. Learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the scheme/policy formulated by the State Government dated 21.11.2002 for compassionate appointment and the fact that a married daughter was not covered under the scheme/policy and also the fact that the petitioner herself choose to keep quiet for a period of more than12 years upheld the decision of the authorities and rejected the claim for compassionate appointment. Learned Single Judge has also taken into account the fact while dismissing the writ petition that there was no material brought on record to demonstrate that the family was still in state of penury as the same was an essential condition for being eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment under the scheme/policy.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner vehemently contended that since at the point of time when the compassionate appointment was claimed, the petitioner was unmarried and dependent upon her father and it was respondents themselves who kept the claim pending for a considerable period during which she got married. Thus denial on the ground that she is married is not justifiable inasmuch as the status of the dependent family members of the government servant is to be seen at the time of the death of the government servant and not at the time of consideration of the grant of compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that delay, if any, has been caused by the respondents and they cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own negligence and lapses. It is also vehemently contended that denying the right of compassionate appointment to a married daughter on her father’s death would be arbitrary and would amount to unreasonable classification and thus would be hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. We have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and perused the record.

6. State of Punjab has formulated a scheme/policy dated 21.11.2002 which governs the compassionate appointment. Clause 3 of the policy clearly limits the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds to the persons specified therein. The relevant clause-3 of the policy is extracted hereunder:-

“Henceforth, the objective of the Scheme






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top