The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, holding that such claims are admissible only when the breadwinner dies in service, not post-retirement, and rejecting the petition as time-barred.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 2200 of 2013 Date of decision: 01.02.2013
Mani Ram
.... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana & others
.... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. Chand Ram Olla, Advocate for the petitioner.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J (ORAL).
The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate basis.
Briefly noticed, it has been pleaded that the father of the petitioner namely Sh. Gian Chand had been appointed as Beldar with the PWD (Irrigation Branch), State of Haryana on 01.01.1956. The father of the petitioner was retired wrongly on 30.06.1973 but was taken back into service in the light of order dated 15.06.1983 (Annexure P-1). Gian Chand retired on 30.06.1983 and expired on 19.10.1984.
Counsel for the petitioner would contend that representations have been made as regards consideration of his claim for grant of compassionate appointment and towards such assertion counsel would refer to the representations at annexures P-2, P-3 & P-4.
Having heard counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, I find that the present writ petition is wholly devoid of merit.
CWP No. 2200 of 2013
-2-
The undisputed facts are that the father of the petitioner retired on 30.06.1983 and thereafter, died on 19.10.1984. The claim as regards compassionate appointment would be admissible only to a member of the family, wherein the bread winner dies in harness. Counsel has not been able to refer to any State Government policy/instructions, whereby such a claim is admissible in the case of a government employee, who dies post-retirement.
Even otherwise, the representations at annexures P-2, P-3 & P-4 relied upon by the counsel relate to the year 1992. No claim for appointment on compassionate basis can be entertained in terms of a writ having been preferred in the year 2013 in relation to the death of a retired employee relating back to the year 1984.
No merit.
Dismissed.
February 01, 2013 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained against a retired government employee who died after retirement.
Whether a writ petition filed in 2013 can enforce a claim arising from the death of an employee in 1984.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mani Ram
State of Haryana
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
