Dismissed

Ram Kishan Yadav v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2012CWP/21451/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandate to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Sub-Inspector. The Court held that the petitioner had already accepted the lower post of Constable and the purpose of compassionate appointment (bailing out the family) was achieved; thus, a belated plea for a higher post cannot be entertained.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ram Kishan Yadav Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P. No.21451 OF 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

C.W.P. No.21451 OF 2011

¶6

DATE OF DECISION : 02.05.2012

Ram Kishan Yadav

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

¶12

Present :Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Petitioner has approached this Court praying for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector with effect from 15.03.2005, as per the policy of the Haryana Government notified on 28.02.2003 (Annexure P-4) which provided that compassionate appointment be granted to the dependants of an employee, who died in harness which shall be at least one step lower than that of the post on which deceased government employee was working.

¶15

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner expired on 29.12.2004 while he was working as SubInspector in Haryana Police. Thereafter, petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. The said application was recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector but the appointing authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police issued an appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Constable. Petitioner, in pursuance to the appointment letter, joined as Constable on 15.03.2005. He continued working on the said post and it is only on 03.10.2011 that the petitioner has now made a representation to the respondents to appoint him against

¶16

C.W.P. No.21451 OF 2011

¶17

-2-

¶18

the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, as per the policy prevailing at the time of the death of his father.

¶19

The purpose and purport of the policy of compassionate appointment is to bail out the family which had suddenly lost the only bread winner and to save them from starvation. Petitioner having been appointed on the post of Constable and has taken benefit of the said appointment, cannot now at this belated stage, be allowed to take a plea which he could have raised when he was initially appointed as a Constable i.e. on 15.03.2005 (Annexure P-3). The first representation which has come on behalf of the petitioner is dated 03.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) which itself depicts the fact that the petitioner had accepted the appointment as per the statutory rules offered to him. The purpose having been achieved by giving compassionate appointment the present petition does not survive firstly being filed at the belated stage and secondly the purpose having been achieved.

¶20

In view of the above, finding no merit in the present case, the same stands dismissed.`

¶21

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

¶22

02.05.2012 adhikari

¶23

JUDGE

Ram Kishan Yadav v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ram Kishan Yadav v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bhartari Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Tara Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Manjit Kaur Vs Kulvinder

Azad Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sher Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.