Dismissed

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Nov 2011CWP/20468/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court examined a challenge to rules denying freedom fighter plot reservation to their dependents. Although the court noted the prima facie lack of justification for such reservation, it dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to establish he was born in independent India to claim benefits as a freedom fighter's child.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the non-reservation of dependents of freedom fighters was dismissed.

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No.20468 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.20468 of 2011 Date of decision: 04.11.2011

Darshan Singh

….Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab and others ….Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶9

Present: Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

HEMANT GUPTA J. (ORAL)

¶11

The challenge in the writ petition is to the condition in the brochure issued by respondent No.3 for allotment of plots in Eco-City, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Mohali, Punjab whereby the dependents and the wards of the freedom fighters, i.e, widow, children and grand-children who have been granted freedom fighter pension from the Punjab Government are not eligible for applying for plots against the 2 % quota reserved for freedom fighters.

¶12

The petitioner, in support of his argument that there should be reservation for plots as stated above, placed reliance upon instructions dated 04.04.1985 and subsequent circular dated 10.07.2001. The said circular provides for reservation in the Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training, seats in Medical Colleges, for direct recruitment in the State Services and in residential plots.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted during the course of arguments that the petitioner has retired as a Teacher, but could not

¶14

CWP No.20468 of 2011 2

¶15

disclose the date of birth to determine the fact; whether the petitioner was born in independent and free India.

¶16

Prima facie, we find that reservation for the dependents of freedom fighters i.e. sons and daughters may not be justified at this stage. One can understand, if reservation as provided to the dependents, who could not educate themselves on account of participation of their bread winner in freedom struggle. But once such dependents are born in free India without any disability, we find that the reservation granted to such dependents of freedom fighters may not meet the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since such issue has not been debated, we say no more at this stage. But keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is asking for reservation, as a son of freedom fighter, we find that the action of respondent No.3 for not providing reservation under 2% quota in Freedom Fighters category, cannot be said to be unjustified.

¶17

Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.

¶18

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶19

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶20

04.11.2011 Sailesh/vimal

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inderjit Singh Vs Ministry of Railway and Ors.

Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Vs State of Punjab

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Punjab

Hayre Regency Hotel Ltd. Vs Tourism Finance Corpn. of India Ltd. and Ors.

Surinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vipan Cottons Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.