Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Amarjeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 March, 2010
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.4836 of 2008
Date of Decision : March 03, 2010.
Smt.Amarjeet Kaur .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Ashwani Chopra, Senior Advocate, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.N.D.Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Mr.Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
-.-
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?
---
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.4836, 5047 and 5048 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases.
For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No.4836 of 2008.
The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated March 17, 2008 (Annexure P-22) whereby she is sought to be reverted from the post C.W.P.No.4836 of 2008 2 of Anganwari Supervisor to that of Anganwari Worker.
The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwari Worker on 2.7.1990. The petitioner is admittedly a dependent of Ex-serviceman. She was thereafter appointed as Anganwari Supervisor vide order dated December 11, 1996 (Annexure P-4) in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2700 and was posted in the office of the Child Development Project Officer, Malerkotla. The selection and appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Supervisor was, however, quashed by this Court vide order dated December 23, 1998 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.1926 of 1997 (Usha Rani and others versus State of Punjab and others), Thereafter, several Review Applications were filed by the effected persons which were allowed vide order dated October 28, 1999 (Annexure P-5-A) and the order quashing the selections was re-called and the writ petitions were ordered to be re-heard. These writ petitions were finally disposed of vide order dated May 19, 2005 (Annexure P-6) with the following directions:-
"(a) the State Government to re-examine the issues arising in the case by the Government itself or through some committee after giving due opportunity of hearing to all those, who are likely to be affected;
(b) such persons who are likely to be affected should have an opportunity of filing their objections against the report; and
(c) to take a decision on the issues raised within a period of twelve months from the date of order."C.W.P.No.4836 of 2008 3
Pursuant to the above-stated directions, the State Government constituted a Committee which is said to have re-considered the entire selection and pursuant to its recommendations only that impugned termination order dated 17.3.2008 (Annexure P-22) has been passed.
It may be noticed here that there were in all 59 Anganwari Supervisors whose services were terminated by passing the orders like the impugned order dated 17.3.2008 (Annexure P-22) and all of them had approached this Court. When a bunch of these writ petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 16.12.2008, learned Advocate General Punjab, in the presence of the Secretary of the concerned Department, made a statement that services of 50 out of 59 writ petitioners were decided to be not dispensed as a one time measure and according to the learned Advocate General, these 50 candidates were eligible for appointment to the post of Anganwari Supervisors. Consequently, the termination orders qua 50 writ petitioners were withdrawn. As regards the petitioner and 8 other candidates, the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Punjab, is duly incorporated in the order dated 16.12.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.5050 of 2008 (Jaspal Kaur and others versus State of Punjab and others), which reads as follows:-
"Mr.Mattewal, learned Advocate General, Punjab further states that as far as remaining 9 candidates, who were working as Aganwari Supervisors are concerned, the Government has decided that these persons would continue as C.W.P.No.4836 of 2008 4 Aganwari Workers as these candidates were not eligible for the post of Anganwari Supervisor. The names of these nine petitioners are as under:-
Sr.No. Names Roll No. 1. Ms.Manjit Kaur 935 2. Ms.Amarjit Kaur 2396 3. Ms.Jaspal Kaur 360 4. Ms.Paramjit Kaur 226 5. Ms.Sukhwant Kaur 599 6. Ms.Balwinder Kaur 1432 7. Ms.Shetal Kaur 1369 8. Ms.Narinder Kaur 2036 9. Mrs Harinder Kaur 343
Mr.Mattewal further states that they would issue appointment letters to the candidates found eligible for appointment by the Satish Chandra Committee, today, itself.
Mr.A.K.Chopra, Advocate appearing for some of the above nine petitioners, whose services were sought to be adjusted on posts of Anganwari Workers, states that as these petitioners have also been working for the last more than 10 years, the State should show some magnanimity in their cases also, otherwise, he would like to argue the case of these persons on merits."
(emphasis applied) Learned counsel for the parties have been accordingly heard at some length and the records perused.
It is apparent from the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner and eight other Anganwari Supervisors have been held ineligible for the reason that the certificates as dependents of Ex- servicemen produced by them at the time of appointments were not strictly as per the Government Instructions. Learned counsel for the petitioner C.W.P.No.4836 of 2008 5 submits that even if the objection is assumed to be correct yet the irregularities, if any, stands rectified by the later Government Instructions dated 3.11.1998 (Annexure P-19), whereby wives/sons/daughters (married or unmarried)/widow/divorcee dependents of the Ex-servicemen are also entitled to the benefits admissible to the `dependents' of the Ex- servicemen, provided that the `married daughters' are actually dependents on the Ex-servicemen.
In order to appreciate the contention, it would be apposite to reproduce the following relevant para of the revised Instructions dated 3.11.1998 (Annexure P-19):-
"Reference on the above mentioned subject, memo No.1/28/92/Policy/3SS/8508 dated 27.10.1998, No.1/28/93-3SS/8382 dated 22.10.1998 and No.1/28/93-3SS/8629 dated 20.10.1998 regarding.
2. In this connection, it is clarified that the wives/ sons/daughters (married or unmarried)/widow/divorcee or re-employed or un-employed Ex-servicemen will be considered included in the definition of dependent of Ex-servicemen. If the Ex-servicemen dies, then his sons/daughters/widow will be considered as a dependent of that Ex-serviceman, The approval is accorded to issue the dependent certificate to such dependents."
(emphasis applied) It appears that the underlying object of the revised policy is to extend the benefits to the dependent children of an Ex-serviceman irrespective of their status as 'married' or 'unmarried' and with a view to C.W.P.No.4836 of 2008 6 achieve such object that not only the dependent children but the wives/widow/divorcee of the Ex-servicemen have also been extended the benefits.
In my considered view, the revised Instructions are essentially clarificatory in nature and intend to bring those within their purview who were earlier left out illegally. The State cannot discriminate between `son' and a `daughter' on the ground of their marital status. Under the un- revised instructions, while a married 'son' could be treated as 'dependent' on his Ex-serviceman father but no such presumption was drawn in favour of a married 'daughter', notwithstanding the fact that the 'marriage' per-se brings no self-dependence to a 'female' for her sustenance and survival.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working as Anganwari Supervisor for the last over 14 years. It is stated that most of the left out Supervisors are nearing retirement. Taking into consideration the facts that the petitioner was fully eligible in terms of the academic qualifications, the State itself has taken a conscious decision to retain 50 out of 59 Supervisors whose services were earlier terminated and the fact that the petitioner is an eligible dependent of Ex-serviceman after issuance of 1998 Instructions, I am of the considered view that the denial of benefit of 'one time concession' to the petitioner is patently discriminatory and cannot sustain in law or equity.
For the reasons aforestated, the writ petitions are allowed; the impugned orders like dated 17.3.2008 (Annexure P-22) is quashed and it C.W.P.No.4836 of 2008 7 is directed that the petitioners shall continue to hold the posts of Anganwari Supervisors with all consequential service benefits.
Dasti.
March 03, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE