Disposed

Om Pal v. State of Pb. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2010CWP/14694/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court considered the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment/subsistence allowance under the Punjab Government Policy due to terrorist injuries. A Medical Board certified his disability at 66%, below the 70% threshold required for benefits.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of with an observation that nothing precludes the competent authority to reconsider the claim sympathetically and in relaxation of the Policy as may be necessitated in the pec

Om Pal Vs State of Pb. and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.14694 of 2006.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.14694 of 2006 Date of Decision: 18.02.2010

¶6

¶7

Om Pal . . . . Petitioner

¶8

VS.

¶9

State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶12

¶13

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner

¶18

Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab

¶19

¶20

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶21

(1). The petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate grounds and/or Subsistence Allowance in terms of the Punjab Government Policy contained in the Notification dated 31.12.1996 (Annexure P3). The aforesaid policy provides employment on compassionate grounds and/or Subsistence Allowance to various categories of victims including “ those persons who have sustained permanent disability exceeding 70% in terrorist’s violence.”

¶22

2 –

¶23

CWP No.14694 of 2006.doc

(2).

(3).

(4).

(5).

The petitioner was seriously injured in an attack by the militants on 22^nd March, 1991 in which 27 employees of Swaraj Foundry in District Ropar were gunned down, whereas three employee including the petitioner were seriously injured while they were on their way to Chandigarh in a bus owned by the foundry.

¶29

The petitioner applied for the benefit under the above-stated Policy and on the asking of the Deputy Commissioner, Ropar he produced the Medical Certificate dated 31.10.1991 (Annexure P6) issued by the Civil Surgeon, Ambala certifying his disability to the extent of 75 per cent.

¶30

The respondents, however, did not grant any benefit to the petitioner in the light of another medical certificate dated 08.11.2006 (Annexure R1) issued by the Principal Medical Officer, Ambala City to the effect that on examination on 08.11.2006, the disability of the petitioner was assessed at 70%.

¶31

According to the respondents, the Policy expressly provides that the disability suffered by a victim must be exceeding 70% then only he is entitled to the benefits under the Policy.

¶32

3 –

¶33

CWP No.14694 of 2006.doc

¶34

(6).

¶35

In the light of the two inconsistent Medical Certificates issued by the same authority, this Court vide order dated 20.04.2009 directed the Medical Superintendent of the Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PGI’) to constitute a Board of Doctors from different disciplines keeping in view the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner and they submit the evaluation report to this Court.

¶36

(7). The above-mentioned direction was issued in the light of the fact that the petitioner had remained admitted in the PGI after the terrorist attack in the year 1991.

¶37

(8). The Medical Board of the PGI has now certified vide report dated 31.07.2009 that the disability of the petitioner is 66 per cent only.

¶38

(9). In these circumstances, when as per the report of a premier Institute, the petitioner’s disability is not exceeding 70%, it would not be possible for this Court to issue any direction to the respondent to extend the benefit of Notification dated 31.12.1996 (Annexure P3) to the petitioner. However, keeping in view the sufferings of the petitioner and the mitigating circumstances

¶39

4 –

¶40

CWP No.14694 of 2006.doc

¶41

highlighted by him, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that nothing observed hereinabove shall preclude the competent authority to re-consider the claim of the petitioner sympathetically and in relaxation of the Policy as may be necessitated in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the authority in this regard.

¶42

(10). Dasti .

¶43

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶44

18.02.2010

¶45

vishal shonkar

Om Pal v. State of Pb. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Pal v. State of Pb. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharam Singh Vs Sukhchain Singh & Ors.

Pinki Vs Balraj

Kiranpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Sudesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sukhwinder Vs State of Punjab and Others

Hardhir Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.