Abhishek Bhatti Son Of Late Sh. Vijay ... vs Union Of India And Others on 29 March, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Abhishek Bhatti Son Of Late Sh. Vijay ... vs Union Of India And Others on 29 March, 2012

Bench: K. Kannan

C.W.P. No.3894 of 2012                                  -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                            CHANDIGARH
                                 C.W.P. No.3894 of 2012
                                 Date of Decision. 29.03.2012

Abhishek Bhatti son of late Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhatti      .....Petitioner

                                   Versus

Union of India and others                               .....Respondents

Present:      Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
   judgment ? No
2.     To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
                                       -.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

1. The petitioner claims compassionate appointment under a scheme on the ground that his father had died in the year 2002 and at that time he was a minor. The scheme provided for a period for consideration for compassionate appointment within a period of one year from the date of death of a person and in extraordinary circumstances, further period of two years was also provided. The contention of the petitioner is that the widow herself could have applied but at that time when the application had been made, it was informed by the respondent that the consideration for compassionate appointment will be done after the petitioner attained the majority. There cannot be an estoppel against their own Scheme and if Scheme itself provides only of a particular period, it cannot avail to a person to contend that the petition for compassionate appointment could be moved at any time. Compassionate appointment itself must be C.W.P. No.3894 of 2012 -2- understood as a deviation from Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the terms of the Scheme must be very specifically construed as laid down by several decisions of the Supreme Court. I did not find any exception to the Rules under the Scheme and therefore, I find no merit in the petition.

2. The writ petition is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 29, 2012 Pankaj*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court