The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion to grant age relaxation for compassionate appointment must be exercised in a fair and transparent manner, and not arbitrarily or discriminatorily.

JUDGMENT

Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J. - Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the impugned order dated 03.01.2019, whereby case of petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by respondent No.1; further prayer is to reconsider his claim in terms of instructions dated 21.11.2002 issued by the, Department of Personnel, Government of Punjab.

2. Facts are not in dispute.

Mother of petitioner, namely, Smt. Sheela Rani, hereinafter referred as "deceased government employee" died in harness while working as Inspector with Punjab Police on 19.03.2012. Considering himself dependent of the deceased government employee, petitioner submitted an application dated 01.03.2013 for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector/Inspector under Priority List Instructions (PLI) with the Punjab Police. Upon verification, his case was sent to Screening Committee for consideration by Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot vide letter dated 13.02.2014. Thereafter, respondent No.1 vide communication dated 28.03.2014 forwarded the same for further necessary action at the end of respondent No.2. In response thereto, respondent No.2, vide letter dated 03.04.2014 informed the SSP, Faridkot that as per instructions dated 21.11.2002, the case of petitioner can be considered for appointment against Group 'C' post.

When above fact came to the knowledge of petitioner, he immediately reiterated his claim for consideration to the post of Sub Inspector.

3. In the interregnum, father of petitioner, namely, Ram Parkash, filed CWP No.3698-2014 (Ram Parkash Vs. State of Punjab and another), for seeking promotion of "deceased government employee" from Inspector to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police; from the date her immediate junior; namely, Kashmir Kaur was promoted. Since the outcome of above writ petition was likely to have material bearing for the entitlement of petitioner on compassionate ground, therefore, his case was kept pending by respondent No.2 till the final decision of the writ petition. Respondent No.1 finding the claim of "deceased government employee" as genuine, granted her retrospective promotion on the post of Dy.S.P. w.e.f. 24.06.2011 vide order dated 20.04.2017. In view of the above development, the writ petition filed by Ram Parkash was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous on 26.04.2017.

4. Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 28.06.2017 sent the case of petitioner to respondent No.1 for grant of age relaxation of 06 years, 09 months & 07 days for consideration on compassionate ground for the post of Sub Inspector.

In view of the above, respondent No.1, vide letter dated 18.07.2017 sought certain clarifications from respondent No.2, including the delay in consideration of the matter. In response thereto, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 18.09.2017, inter-alia responded:-

"Inspector Sheela Rani No.1288/ Faridkot had died on 19.3.2012. Rakesh Dhawan son of deceased employee had submitted an application on 1.3.2013 for appointment as Sub- Inspector on compassionate grounds. A CWP 3698 of 2014 had filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court for promoting the employee as DSP. As such, the case of the Applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds was kept in abeyance to await the decision of the Hon'ble High Court because in case the employee was promoted as DSP, the case of the Applicant for appointment as Sub- Inspector would have been considered as per the Government Instructions and in case the employee was not promoted, the case of the applicant would have to be considered for appointment to the post of Clerk/Constable."

The SSP, Faridkot, vide letter dated 27.07.2018, forwarded the details of petitioner as well as his family members, along with assets and liabilities/ movable & immovable properties to the office of respondent No.2 for taking further action. It is necessary to mention here that certain other details of petitioner were also sent by SSP, Faridkot, from time to t