Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajwinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 February, 2010
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
CWP No.19234 of 2008.doc -1-
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CWP No.19234 of 2008
Date of Decision: 18.02.2010
****
Rajwinder Kumar . . . . Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
Present: Mr. G.P. Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab
*****
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the memo dated 09.03.2006 (Annexure P5), whereby, his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on the plea that he has applied after an inordinate delay.
(2). The father of the petitioner late Shri Harmesh Ram was serving as a JBT Teacher in the Education Department, Government of Punjab. On ill-fated day i.e. 30.11.1994 while he was going on a scooter along with his wife and two minor CWP No.19234 of 2008.doc -2- sons, namely, the petitioner and Rupinder Kumar, they met with an accident in which Harmesh Ram died at the spot. The mother of the petitioner also suffered multiple injuries. The younger brother of the petitioner - Rupinder Kumar, who was seriously injured too passed away on the very next day i.e. on 01.12.1994.
(3). The petitioner was born on 13.05.1994. He was hardly six month old when his father died in harness. It is true that the mother of the petitioner was offered appointment as a Class-IV employee on compassionate grounds but she could not accept the same largely due to her physical disability caused by the accident in question. The Medical Certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Nawanshahr dated 03.09.1996 (Annexure P7) clearly reveals that Smt. Avtar Kaur
- the mother of the petitioner was found to be locomotor disable to the extent of 30%. Unfortunately, the sister of the petitioner (Baljit Kumari) is also orthopaedically-challenged person having permanent disability to the extent of 80% due to polio.
CWP No.19234 of 2008.doc -3-(4). The petitioner passed his 10+2 examination in the year 2003 from the Punjab School Education Board (Certificate Annexure P4) and immediate thereafter applied for his employment on compassionate grounds under the ex gratia policy. Earlier his mother had also requested the authorities that instead of she, her son may be appointed under the ex gratia scheme and it was in response to that application that the authorities vide memo dated 2nd December, 1997 (Annexure P3) informed the petitioner's mother that "your case regarding appointment on compassionate grounds is being kept pending till your son Rajwinder Kumar become eligible for the service." (5). The application moved by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground after he qualified 10+2 examination has now been turned down on the ground that he has moved the authorities belatedly.
(6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. The principles governing appointments under the ex gratia scheme/compassionate grounds as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of CWP No.19234 of 2008.doc -4- Haryana vs. Umesh Kumar Nagpal, 1994(4) SCC 138 are well-known. Suffice it to observe that unless there is a dire and genuine need to provide some source of survival to the bereaved family, such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The delay in approaching the authorities though is a decisive factor to determine as to whether or not the family could survive without the aid of such employment, nevertheless it cannot be the sole factor to determine the prolonged need.
(7). It does not mean that the family of a deceased employee even if manages to sustain or survive, may be, an animal life with shattered dreams, must always be presumed to have no mitigating circumstances warranting the State's compassion under the ex gratia Scheme.
(8). The facts of the case in hand speak for themselves. The petitioner lost his father as well as his younger brother in the accident, which also crippled his mother. His sister is unfortunately suffering from permanent disability (polio) since her childhood. In these circumstances, the petitioner's anxiety to secure minimum CWP No.19234 of 2008.doc -5- educational qualification to become eligible for first level entry into Government service deserves to be patted. As soon as he passed 10+2 examination, the petitioner approached the authorities for appointment on compassionate grounds. The authorities themselves had earlier assured the petitioner's mother (Annexure P3) to keep the case for appointment under the ex gratia scheme pending till her son - the petitioner would attain majority. It, therefore, does not lie in their mouth to turn around and blame the petitioner for the delay in approaching the authorities. (9). The petitioner has satisfactorily explained as to why the mother of the petitioner could not accept the ex gratia employment due to the disability caused in the same accident. The respondents, therefore, owing to the commitment of a Welfare State, ought to have extended their helping hand to the petitioner and his family who are in dire need of a dignified source of survival. (10). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 09.03.2006 (Annexure P5) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner CWP No.19234 of 2008.doc -6- under the ex gratia scheme on a suitable post within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (11). It is further directed that meanwhile, if there is any amendment in the Policy decision of the State Government, the claim of the petitioner for appointment shall be considered as per the ex gratia Scheme/Policy which was in vogue at the time when the father of the petitioner died or when the petitioner acquired the eligibility for employment as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheela Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008(4)SCT 475.
(12). Ordered accordingly.
(13). Dasti.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
18.02.2010
vishal shonkar