Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hira Lal & Another vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 September, 2008
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.13532 of 2008
Date of Decision: September 10, 2010
Hira Lal & Another
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Aseem Kataria, Advocate, for
the petitioners.
Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, for the
respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to release service benefits alongwith interest in lieu of service rendered by Subhash Chander, son of the petitioners. Another prayer made in the petition is to give appointment on compassionate ground to the other son of the petitioners.
2. In the petition, it has been CWP No.13532 of 2008 [2] pleaded that Subhash Chander, son of the petitioners, was employed as Special Police Officer. The said person died on 21.8.1993 on account of accidental fire from his service weapon. The petitioners approached Police Department for release of service benefits in lieu of service rendered by their son for five years. The petitioners further made a prayer to give employment to another son of the petitioners on compassionate ground.
3. The respondents have filed reply taking specific plea that Subhash Chander was appointed as Special Police Officer on 4.8.1992 on daily wages. As per instructions issued by the Government, service benefits are given only to the dependent(s) of regular Government employees. Since Subhash Chander was serving on daily wages, service benefit is not admissible to the petitioners.
4. In regard to the other claim viz.
appointment of another son of the petitioners on compassionate ground, it has been stated that the appointment on compassionate ground could be given only to a family member of a regular Government employee. Subhash Chander, at no point in time, was a Government employee. Document, Annexure R-1, has been placed on record which is CWP No.13532 of 2008 [3] dated 31.7.2007 vide which petitioner No.1, Hira Lal, was informed that benefits could be given only to dependent of regular employee(s).
5. Replication has been filed denying the fact that Subhash Chander was appointed as Special Police Officer in Punjab Police on daily wages and the respondents be put to the strict proof of the fact.
6. Having heard the contentions of learned counsel, I am of the view that specific pleading has been made by the petitioners themselves that Subhash Chander was employed as Special Police Officer. A civil writ petition is a suit which is required to be supplemented with the evidence on which the petitioner chooses to rely, in view of its nature. Not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed in case of a writ petition. When a writ petitioner raised a point of law which is required to be substantiated by facts, he must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and accompanying documents. If he is a respondent, the facts asserted are required to be proved from the written statement/counter affidavit and supporting documents. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of CWP No.13532 of 2008 [4] such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the written statement/counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point.
7. The petition does not establish the fact that the son of the petitioners was a regular Government employee. The petition itself pleads that son of the petitioners was a Special Police Officer. No rule or instruction has been cited to say that family of SPO is entitled to relief claimed in the writ petition. No document has been placed on record which would indicate vested right in the petitioners to claim reliefs prayed for. In such circumstances, no relief in extraordinary writ jurisdiction can be granted.
8. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(AJAI LAMBA)
September 10, 2010 JUDGE
avin
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?