JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the speaking order dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure P-11) vide which claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on a suitable post has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the State service on compassionate grounds on a suitable post.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a member of the terrorist affected family as his grandfather was killed by the terrorists on 29.11.1988 and red card bearing No.183 had been issued by the State Government in this regard. He has further submitted that keeping in view the family circumstances, after the death of grandfather of the petitioner, father of the petitioner, Tejinder Singh, was offered a job of Naib Tehsildar. However, since father of the petitioner was not a graduate, therefore, he was denied issuance of appointment letter vide letter dated 08.02.1989 (Annexure P-4). He has further submitted that from the date the petitioner acquired the qualification of graduation, he started representing to the respondents for compassionate appointment on the ground of belonging to a terrorist affected family, however, when no action was taken thereon, the petitioner got served a legal notice dated 17.02.2021 (Annexure P- 9) upon the respondents, but to no avail. Left with no other remedy, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.11799 of 2021 – Jashandeep Singh Gill v. The State of Punjab and others, which was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 05.10.2021 (Annexure P- 10), with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the legal notice dated 17.02.2021 (Annexure P-9), in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order preferably, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In compliance of the abovesaid order, the respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure P-11), whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has wrongly been rejected. He has further submitted that in view of the policy/instructions issued by the State of Punjab from time to time i.e. dated 05.02.1996 (Annexure P-6); 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-7) and 12.01.2004 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in Government service on compassionate grounds as various other persons, detailed in para 13 of the petition, have been given appointment in similar circumstances.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the impugned order and opposed the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. He has further submitted that petitioner does not fulfil the requirements of the afore-referred instructions and has failed to show that he is/was dependent on a deceased. Furthermore, grandfather of the petitioner was a member of the SGPC and was not rendering any service to the State at the relevant time. Therefore, no cause of action arises in favour of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Petitioner claims to be a member of the terrorist affected family and seeks appointment on compassionate grounds as his grandfather was killed by the terrorists on 29.11.1988. The father of the petitioner was offered job of Naib Tehsildar by the State Government, however, since he was not a graduate, no appointment letter was issued. The reliance of the petitioner on the policy/ instructions issued by the State Government from time to time is misplaced as the Punjab Government formulated a policy for compassionate appointments, namely, “Grant of employment in the State Service on compassionate grounds – 2002” and the objective of the said policy is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds only to a dependent member of the family of a person (bread winne