Dismissed

Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2013CWP/15796/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the rejection of his compassionate appointment claim, arguing eligibility was determined at the time of the deceased brother's death. The court held the petitioner was ineligible as he was married at the time of consideration and the distress purpose of the policy no longer prevailed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed holding the petitioner ineligible due to marriage and delay.

Nishan Singh Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.15796 of 2010 { 1 }

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of Decision: May 22, 2013

Nishan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶10

Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Harsimran Singh Sethi, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the State.

¶12

¶13

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)

¶14

Petitioner has approached this Court, impugning the order dated 9.12.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran-respondent No.3, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground stands rejected on the ground that the petitioner is married and as per the policy instructions of the State of Punjab dated 21.11.2002, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be granted to a married brother.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner, namely, Rajbhag Singh was a victim of terrorism, which was prevailing in Punjab in the year 1988. His elder brother Darshan

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No.15796 of 2010 { 2 }

¶17

Singh was given appointment on compassionate ground on 8.10.1994 as a Gram Sewak in the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Chohla Sahib. Unfortunately, his brother also died on 5.7.1996 due to cardiac arrest. Petitioner, at that time, was around fourteen years of age and was fully dependent on his elder brother Darshan Singh. He passed his matriculation on 28.5.2001 and thereafter submitted a representation for appointment on compassionate grounds. The claim of the petitioner was duly forwarded by the authorities in the year 2003, which has been considered vide order dated 9.12.2009 (Annexure P-5) by respondent No.3 rejecting his claim. This, counsel for the petitioner contends, is not sustainable in the light of the fact that as per the policy instructions, in the year 1996 when his brother died, he was fully dependent upon him and was unmarried. The eligibility of the person is to be seen on the date of death of the employee and not at the time when the case for consideration for appointment to the post on compassionate grounds is to be considered. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order is not sustainable.

¶18

Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that the very purpose for the grant of compassionate appointment is to help out a family, which is in distress and is unable to sustain itself. That period having expired and the petitioner, when he put forth his claim which was considered, was already a married person and, therefore, cannot be said that he would be covered by the

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No.15796 of 2010 { 3 }

¶20

instructions issued by the respondents dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure R-1), which specifically bar appointment on compassionate grounds to a married brother of a deceased Government employee as the eligibility specifies that an unmarried brother can only be appointed on compassionate grounds. He accordingly contends that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶21

On considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the claim, as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, cannot be accepted. Petitioner is not eligible under the policy instructions dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure R-1), where dependent of a Government employee, who is seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, should be unmarried. That apart, the brother of the petitioner died on 5.7.1996 and petitioner became eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds and put forth his claim in the year 2001 as he passed his matriculation in the said year. By that time, the situation cannot be said to be one which would be prevalent which would permit the exercise of powers by the respondents to grant him compassionate appointment as per the policy instructions dated 21.11.2002. The very purpose of the said policy is to bail out a family, which is in distress and has lost its sole bread earner with no other source of income to survive. That situation, being no more prevalent, the claim as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition does not survive. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in Krishna

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No.15796 of 2010 { 4 }

¶23

Kumari Versus State of Haryana & others, 2012(2) S.C.T. 736

¶24

also would debar the claim as made by the petitioner in the light of

¶25

the delay in claiming his appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶26

The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

¶27

May 22, 2013 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) ramesh JUDGE

Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Chand Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sat Pal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Malkit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

P.J. Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Major I.J.S.Bhatia Vs Union of India & Anr.

B.S.Guraya Vs Union of India etc.