Dismissed

Rajinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2016CWP/14532/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the denial of employment under a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. The Court held that since a family member had already received a government job over two decades ago, and the truth about this was concealed during previous litigation, no further employment could be granted to the remaining family members.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; no direction issued for employment.

Rajinder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

CWP No. 14532 of 2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 14532 of 2014 Date of decision: 12.01.2016

¶5

Rajinder Singh and others

¶6

....Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶11

Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Ms. Monica Chhiber Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioners challenge the order dated 22.04.2013 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the benefit of employment in pursuance of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy dated 18.11.1993 has been denied on the ground that one Onkar Singh s/o Vakilo, who was the uncle of the petitioners has already been given a government job. The details of relationship is given as under in the written statement:-

¶15

“Accordingly, as per Jamabandi existing on 1.5.1986, employment has already been given to Onkar Singh son of Vakilo son of Naranga who is related to all the four petitioners in the following manner:-

¶16

a) Uncle of Petitioner No. 01 namely Rajinder Singh son of Chain Singh son of Vakilo son of Naranga.

¶17

b) Uncle of Petitioner No. 02 namely Karam Singh @ Karam Singh son of Jeet Singh son of Vakilo son of Naranga.

¶18

c) Brother of the petitioner no. 03 namely Wariyam Singh son of Vakilo son of Naranga.

¶19

SHIVANI GUPTA 2016.01.19 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CWP No. 14532 of 2014

¶21

¶22

d) Cousin brother of the petitioner namely Bharat Bhushan son of Amar Singh son of Naranga.”

¶23

The four petitioners herein have a common ancestor namely

¶24

Naranga and Onkar Nath, who was given employment on 09.10.1996, photocopy of which has now been placed on record, is son of Vakilo. Petitioners no. 1 and 2 are grand sons of Vakilo, being sons of Chain Singh and Jeet Singh respectively. Similarly, Waryam Singh is son of Vakilo, s/o Narang and Bharat Bhushan petitioner no. 4 is also the son of Amar Singh s/o Naranga. The reconsideration was ordered on the basis of the fact that the petitioners had filed CWP No. 17905 of 2011 and the State had been directed to find out the correctness of the averments made in Annexure P-8 which had been filed alongwith the civil miscellaneous application.

¶25

It is, thus, apparent that the uncle of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and brother of petitioner no. 3 and cousin brother of petitioner no. 4 had already been granted the employment more than two decades earlier and around 15 years before, this Court was approached in the above said case in CWP No. 17905 of 2011. The said appointment granted to Onkar Nath was never a subject matter of challenge that it had been wrongly granted and the family had been satisfied with the appointment given to one member. It is only on account of a subsequent litigation which ensued in this Court in the year 2011 in Dharam Singh vs. State of Punjab that the issue was again sought to be raked up for the first time in spite of the fact that the petitioners' family had already benefitted by way of public employment.

¶26

In such circumstances, the undue benefit which is sought for public employment for each individual of a family, which had already been granted, cannot be acceded to. It this Court had been apprised of that SHIVANI GUPTA 2016.01.19 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CWP No. 14532 of 2014

¶28

¶29

situation at that point of time, the result would have been different. The factum of Onkar Nath having been given appointment has been concealed from the Court on two occasions and on this account alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

In such circumstances, no directions can be issued for the claim which the petitioners seek redressal of and accordingly the present petition is dismissed.

¶31

12.01.2016 shivani

¶32

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶33

SHIVANI GUPTA 2016.01.19 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Rajinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Singh and Others 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

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Iqbal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rachpal Singh @ Rashpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rahul Bharti Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rohit Sharma @ Rohit Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Baljeet Singh Virk Vs State of Pb.Etc.