Punjab-Haryana High Court
Beant Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 14 May, 2001
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand, R.C. Kathuria
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. Smt. Beant Kaur is the widow or Pritam Singh deceased. She has made a prayer through this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to appoint the petitioner against some suitable post on compassionate ground after regularising the services of her husband Shri Pritam Singh, who died in harness:
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that her husband was appointed on 4th November, 1986 in the office of Executive Engineer, Public Health (PWS) Division, Sangrur. On 7th May, 1993 respondent No. 1 had issued a policy of regularisation of ad hoc/work-charge/casual daily employee andas per the policy, the daily wage employees who had completed 10 years of service were entitled to be regularised. On 21st August, 1997, respondent No. 3 recommended the case of the husband of the petitioner for his regularisation to respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-2. The husband of the petitioner unfortunately expired on 30th November, 1997 but the formal order of regularisation of his services could not be issued due to the administrative and procedural delay. It is alleged by the petitioner that she is Matriculate. She made an application on 2nd January, 1998 before the respondent No. 4 seeking appointment on compassionate ground as her husband had died during the course of the service. On 23rd February, 1998, respondent No. 5 wrote a letter to respondent No. 4 for seeking appointment of the petitioner as she was unable to maintain herself and to maintain other family members as they were fully dependent upon the income of the deceased. On 11th March, 1998, some information was sought by respondent No. 4 which were duly complied with. On 15th March, 1998, as per the directions of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the petitioner moved an application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground which was duly recommended by the Junior Engineer concerned and on 23rd February, 1998, the petitioners case was again recommended by respondent No. 5 to respondent No. 4. In spite of the correspondence made by the petitioner,' no relief has been granted to her. Resul-tantly, she served a legal notice on 3rd December, 1998. With this background the petitioner has made the above prayer.
3. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. The submissions of the respondents can be reflected through paragraph 3 of the written statement which runs as follows :-
"That policy issued by Punjab Government vide his letter No. 11/18/88-4PP- HI/7244 dated7.5.1993 relates to Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Pollicies-3 Branch) but no respondent No. 1 i.e. Secretary Department of P. W.D. (Public Health), Punjab, Chandigarh, According to para (vi) of above policy only those workers were to be considered for regularisation with effect from 1.9.1992 who have completed 10 years of more service on 31.8.1992. But late Sh. Pritam Singh son of Sh. Kaka Singh was engaged as fitter coolie on 4.11.1986. He had completed 10 years service on 3.11.1996 and expired on 30.11.1997. The name of the husband of the petitioner was sent to the Chief Engineer, Punjab, Public Health Patiala, vide Superintending Engineer, Public Health (RWS), Circle, Sangrur No. 8329 dated 21.8.1997 for regularisation on completion of 10 years service as on 31.12.1996. But the government had not framed any policy in the year 1996 for regularisation of daily worker. As such, he could not be regularised as the petitioner was negligible to be considered for regularisation in terms of the policy letter dated 7.5.1993 Annexure P-3."
4. We have heard Shri Baljit Puri on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Lakhwinder Bir Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case.
5. The case of the petitioner is that her husband is being deprived of the benefit of regularisation of his services on the basis of the policy dated 7th March, 1993 Annexure R-l which lays down that before the services could be regularised it was obligatory on the part of the employee to complete 10 years of service on or before the 31 st August, 1992. The stand of the respondent- authorities is that since the husband of the petitioner joined his service as fitter coolie on 4th November, 1986 and that he had not completed 10 years of service on 31 st August, 1992, rather on 3rd November, 1996, therefore, he was not entitled to be regularised as per the policy dated 7th May, 1993. We are not in a position to accept this contention of the respondents because, in our opinion, the underlying object of the policy letter dated 7th May, 1993 was to regularise the services of those workers who had completed 10 years of service and in order to achieve that object the administration desired that cut off date should be given which was 31st August, 1992. This policy was of one time policy. The State cannot deprive regularisation of services of those temporary workers who had completed 10 years of service after 31 st August, 1992. The husband of the petitioner admittedly completed 10 years of service on 3rd November, 1996 but as on that day, there was no other policy declared by the State Government, therefore, his services could not be regularised. This stand of the respondents, in our opinion, is untenable, as we have stated above that the object of the policy dated 7th May, 1993 was that a worker must have completed 10 years of service. Shri Pritam Singh had completed 10 years of service before his death. So much, so his case at one point of time was sent for fegularisation which was not approved for the reason that in the year 1996 no other policy was declared after the policy decision of the year, 1993. Resultantly, we hold that the husband of the petitioner was entitled to be regularised on completion of 10 years service w.e.f. 3rd November, 1996 and we order accordingly.
6. The second point for determination in this writ petition is whether petitioner Smt. Beant Kaur deserves to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground or not. We dispose of this Writ petition by giving directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground subject to her eligibility and necessary order shall be passed by respondent No. 4 within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs?
7. Petition allowed