Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jyoti Rani vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And ... on 20 January, 2023
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=
CWP No. 6988 of 2022(O&M) and other connected cases 1
112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6988 of 2022(O&M)
Date of decision : January 20, 2023
Jyoti Rani
...... Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others
...... Respondents
CWP No. 14812 of 2022(O&M)
Renu
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...... Respondents
CWP No. 29202 of 2018 (O&M)
Sudesh Rani
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
***
Present :-Mr. S. S. Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-6988-2022.
Mr. H. S. Deol, Advocate
for the petitioner CWP-29202-2018 .
Mr. M. S. Kanda, Advocate and
Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-14812-2022.
Mr. I.P.S. Kang, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Sahil Sharma, Advocate
for PSPCL in CWP-29202-2018
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Advocate
for PSPCL in CWP-6988-2022.
1 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 11:14:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=
CWP No. 6988 of 2022(O&M) and other connected cases 2
Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No. 2 in CWP-14812-2022.
***
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
The present bunch of writ petitions relates to the petitioners claiming right to compassionate appointment. Since all the writ petitions involve common question of law in the back drop of similar set of facts they are being taken together for adjudication.
CWP-29202-2018 The petitioner is about 37 years of age is married daughter of late Roshan Lal who admittedly died on 08.02.2013 in harness. The petitioner is a single child of her parents and claims to be living with her mother. The petitioner admits that her husband is also living with them and claims that after death of her father her mother became totally dependent upon the petitioner. Challenge has been made to the order dated 23.6.2014 (Annexure P-8) whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected being married daughter of the petitioner and thus, not eligible in terms of the definition of dependent family members as contemplated in the policy instructions issued by Punjab Government bearing No.11/105/98/4PP11/14420 dated 21.11.2002 and 11/99/2002-4PPH/1108 dated 26.08.2020.
CWP-6988 of 2022 The petitioner is also married daughter of late Sham Lal who died in harness on 13.04.2021. At the time of death, Sham Lal was working as a Lineman 2 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 11:14:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP No. 6988 of 2022(O&M) and other connected cases 3 with the respondent-Corporation. On his death he left behind his widow Geeta Rani and the present petitioner. Admittedly, husband of the petitioner is living along with the petitioner and her mother and is stated to be engaged in labour work. Mother of the petitioner i.e. widow of late Sham Lal on affidavit stated that she is dependent on her daughter and her husband. Challenge is to the order dated 07.09.2021 (Annexure P-10) whereby claim of the petitioner has been rejected in terms of instructions issued by Government of Punjab vide letter No. 11/105/98/4PP11/14420 dated 22.11.2002 and 11/99/2002-4PPII/1108 dated 26.08.2011 for the reason that as per definition of dependent family of the deceased employee married daughter is not considered as dependent. CWP-14812 of 2022 The petitioner is stated to be 30 years of age seeks compassionate appointment on demise of her father Paramjit who was serving as a Lineman with the respondent-Corporation and died in harness on 20.9.2020 leaving behind his widow namely Geeta and the petitioner daughter. Husband of the petitioner namely Mohit is living with the petitioner and her mother. On demise of Paramjit, widow Geeta submitted an application to the authority seeking compassionate appointment for her daughter which reads as under:-
"To Senior Executive Engineer Division Bhogpur.
Sub: For giving option for service.
Sir, 3 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 11:14:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP No. 6988 of 2022(O&M) and other connected cases 4 It is requested that I Gita w/o Late Paramjit R/O requested that Ward No. 6, Balmiki Mohalla (Rishi Nagar) Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. My husband Sh. Paramjit was serving under your officer Sub Division Bhogpur No. 1 as Lineman and has been died on 20.09.2020. My husband has left behind me and my daughter Renu. Therefore I do not get solatium and I want my daughter Renu to be appointed in service. Because I do not have any other Child, who can support me in old age. Therefore I want my daughter Renu be to appointed in service so that she may look after me in my old age. I shall be thankful to you.
Yours Faithfully Thumb impression Gita W/O Late Sh. Paramjit R/O Ward No. 6, balmiki Mohalla Rishi Nagar, Mukeria, District Hoshiarpur."
Challenge in the present writ petition is also to the rejection of the claim of the petitioner being married daughters vide letter from the Assistant Executive Engineer, Transmission Sub Division No. 1 Bhogpur (Annexure P-6).
Learned counsel representing the petitioners in the aforesaid matters have emphatically argued that the rejection of the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment is in the teeth of law laid down by a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Amarjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another CWP- 2218 of 2017 decided on 17.01.2020 whereby 'unmarried' in clause(c) of Note 1 sub para 2 of para 3 of 2002 Scheme has been declared ultra vires of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India having an effect of including married daughters in the definition of 'dependent family members' as contemplated under Note I of 2002 Policy and that in Full Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court 4 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 11:14:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP No. 6988 of 2022(O&M) and other connected cases 5 rendered in State of West Bengal and others Vs. Purnima Dass and others reported as 2018 (1) SCT 297 to the same effect.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have thus, argued that once the word 'unmarried' already stands struck down by a Writ Court, the policy of the State of Punjab regulating the rights of the petitioners for compassionate appointment has to be read accordingly and word 'unmarried' shall stand excluded therefrom.
Per contra learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (since after marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli) Civil Appeal No. 6938 of 2022 wherein it has been held that married daughter being not dependent upon the parents cannot claim compassionate appointment.
Further reliance is being placed upon the Division Bench judgment in Gurpreet Kaur Vs. State of Punjab 2019 (1) SCT 66 wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as under:-
"12. Tested in the light of the settled legal proposition by the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, since the policy/guideline framed by the State of Punjab for compassionate appointment does not include the married daughter to be eligible for being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, there can be no manner of doubt that the petitioner-appellant being a married daughter, stands excluded from the zone of consideration. Thus, the order passed by
5 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 11:14:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP No. 6988 of 2022(O&M) and other connected cases 6 the respondents rejecting her claim on the ground that she was a married daughter and affirmation of the same by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with.
16 Besides the above noted factors are for sure a positive indication of the fact that the family of the deceased was not living in penury inasmuch as during this period not only the petitioner-appellant acquired higher education but also got married on 19.02.2012. Inordinate delay in making a claim for compassionate appointment after attaining majority again disentitles her from being considered for compassionate appointment for the simple reason that the very purpose and object for grant of compassionate appointment, which is to enable the family to tied over the financial crisis which it faces on account of death of the sole bread earner, stands frustrated. The factors clearly indicate that the period of crisis, if any, after the sudden death was over. It is well settled that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered after a long lapse of time and after the crisis is over. A reference may be made again to the observations in this regard made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case (supra).
17 . Another important aspect to be taken into consideration apart from the fact that a married daughter is not included in the definition of the family is the fact that after the marriage, there is a presumption that married daughter must have settled with her husband comprising a separate family unless established to the contrary. In this view of the matter, compassionate appointment to the married daughter may not lead to any financial help for the other members of the family left behind by the deceased. Compassionate appointment in such circumstances would apparently frustrate the very laudable object and purpose of granting compassionate appointment. Apart from the above, the petitioner-appellant 6 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 11:14:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP No. 6988 of 2022(O&M) and other connected cases 7 also stands disqualified from being considered for compassionate appointment in the absence of even alleging that the family still continuous to be in penury. "
Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon an order passed by Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik w/o Vinayak Puranik Vs. The State of Karnataka represented By Its Secretary and others reported as 2021 (4) SLR 124 wherein the rule denying the compassionate appointment to married daughters stands quashed holding that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of expression family for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is illegal and un-constitutional being in violation of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. It has been asserted that the aforesaid judgment passed by the Karnatka High Court stands approved by the Apex Court in SLP No. 20166 of 2021 decided on 17.12.2021 titled as State of Karnataka and others Vs. C. N. Apporva Shree and another wherein approving the view of Karnataka High Court, Apex Court held as under:-
"We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and have analyzed the impugned judgment. We give our full imprimatur to the reasoning of the High Court, more so, ab even the rule in question relied upon by the petitioner to deny a married daughter a ne on compassionate grounds while permitting it to a married son, has been quashed in the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Bhuvaneshwari V. Purani v. State of Karnataka (2021) 1 AKR 444 [AIR Online 2020 Kar 2303].
7 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 11:14:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP No. 6988 of 2022(O&M) and other connected cases 8
2. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
3. Pending application stands disposed of."
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through record of the case.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the issue apart from the matrimonial status and rather more pertinent than the matrimonial status of the petitioners is involving their dependency on the deceased. There is no denial to the fact that the concept of compassionate appointment is anti thesis to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the purpose of framing of such policy for compassionate appointment to relieve the family of the deceased employee from immediate financial distress. The observations of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana 1994 (4 ) SCC 138 serve as guiding light. The same was reiterated by the Apex Court in Bhavani Parsad Vs. Onkar Singh 4 SCC 209 holding as under:-
"2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and met-it. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain 8 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 11:14:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP No. 6988 of 2022(O&M) and other connected cases 9 contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of 9 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 11:14:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP No. 6988 of 2022(O&M) and other connected cases 10 the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the Change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.
xxxxx the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole (1989)4 SCC 468 : (1989)11 ATC 878 : (1989)4 SLR 327 breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
The case of the petitioners when gazed from the aforesaid lense of binding precedents, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner in CWP No.29202 of 2018 stood rejected vide order dated 23.06.2014. The writ petition has been filed in the year 2018. Roshan Lal, father of the petitioner died on 8.02.2013. Delay is fatal to the case of the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653 held as under:-
." 40. We are not impressed with the submission that delay should not be taken into account since Paragraph 8 of the Scheme contemplates that in a situation where all the dependant children of the deceased employee have yet to attain the age of majority, the time limit for submission of an application is extended until the first of the children attains the age of twenty one years. A case where each of the children is a minor falls in a different class altogether. This cannot be equated with a situation where a dependant of a deceased employee who 10 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 11:14:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP No. 6988 of 2022(O&M) and other connected cases 11 was a major on the date of death fails to submit an application within a reasonable period of time from the death of the employee. This aspect of delay has been dealt with in other decisions of this Court, including State of J&K v.
Sajad Ahmed Mir, 2006(3) S.C.T. 598: (2006) 5 SCC 766, para 11 and Local Administration Department v. M. Selvanayagam, 2011(2) S.C.T. 763:
(2011)3 SCC 42, para 11, 12 and 13."
In CWP-14812-2022, even though the impugned order has been passed solely on the ground that the petitioner being married daughter is not entitled for compassionate appointment yet on merits, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is not being maintained by her husband and was dependent on her father. Rather, the application filed by the widow of the deceased-employee placed on record as Annexure P-4 itself shows that it is widow of the employee who claims that she is dependent upon his daughter and not vice versa. Resultantly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition filed by the petitioner does not merit acceptance when tested on the test zone of principles of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shashi Kumar's case (supra).
Similarly, in the case of Sudesh Rani Vs. State of Punjab and others in CWP-29202-2018 also the mother of the petitioner claims employment for the petitioner asserting that she is dependent upon her daughter. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner was dependent on her deceased father.
As a squeal of the discussion held hereinabove, this Court does not 11 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 11:14:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP No. 6988 of 2022(O&M) and other connected cases 12 find any merit in these three writ petitions. The same are ordered to be dismissed accordingly.
Since the main writ petitions have been dismissed, all the pending applications, if any shall also stand dismissed.
( PANKAJ JAIN )
JUDGE
January 20, 2023
archana
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
Neutral Citation No:=
12 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 11:14:48 :::