Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmala Devi And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 May, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 20349 of 2010
Date of Decision: May 4, 2012
Nirmala Devi and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, ACJ.
ACJ.
1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner No. 2 for compassionate appointment, which has been rejected on the ground that his father Shri Sukhbir Singh has not rendered three years regular service before his death.
2. The facts are not in dispute. On 25.11.1994, Shri Sukhbir Singh, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2, was appointed as Social Study Master on ad hoc basis. On 30.9.2003, his services were regularized. He died in harness on 12.2.2004. It is claimed that immediately thereafter petitioner No. 1 made an application seeking compassionate appointment of petitioner No. 2 on the post of Clerk. Subsequently also they made several representations on 8.3.2006, 29.11.2006, 24.8.2007, 18.12.2007, 7.4.2008, 10.11.2008 and 24.1.2009. But nothing was communicated to them. Eventually on 29.7.2009, when the CWP No. 20349 of 2010 2 petitioners sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it was conveyed that the claim of petitioner No. 2 for compassionate appointment could not be considered because Shri Sukhbir Singh has not completed three years regular service in the respondent department. It has also been submitted by the petitioners that three candidates, who had applied for compassionate appointment after the request made by petitioner No. 1, have been appointed as Clerk.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the aforementioned reasoning adopted by the respondents to reject their claim is not tenable in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Kamlesh v. State of Haryana and another (CWP No. 6183 of 2006, decided on 17.8.2006, Annexure P-
P-13).
13) In the said case the Division Bench after interpreting Clause 3(d)(ii) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (for brevity, 'the Rules') has held as under:-
" ......a strict view as has been taken by the respondents would be unwarranted in matters concerning compassionate appointment. The object of Rules contemplating compassionate appointment is to provide some succour to the family of the deceased Government employee, who is virtually the bread earner of the family. It advances a social object of rescuing such a family from the clutches of a sudden event plunging the whole family into penury and haplessness.
The social object as sought to be achieved by the Rules cannot be defeated by strictly construing the CWP No. 20349 of 2010 3 rules as had been done by the respondents. For facility of reference, we reproduce the rule here under:-
"3(d) "Deceased Govt. Employees" means a Government employee-
(i) appointed on regular basis, and not working on daily wages, casual,apprentice, work charged, adhoc, contractual or reemployment basis;
(ii) who has served the Government for at least 3 years;
(iii) who should not have crossed the age of 55 years."
If rule 3(d)(ii) of the Rules is read ejusdem generis as suggested by the learned State counsel rather than interpreting both the clauses independently of each other then the basic object of the rules of ameliorating the sufferings of dependents of deceased Government employee would stand defeated. Such is not the intention of the rule making authority. It is trite to observe that socio economic legislation is required to be interpreted by keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by such legislation. Moreover, Rule 3(d)(ii) has to be read down by adding words regular service. The plain meaning of the Rule is that an employee should have served the Government for at least for three years which the husband of the petitioner has done. It is also pertinent to notice that any adhoc service followed by regularisation is to qualify for pension as has been CWP No. 20349 of 2010 4 held by the Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab 1988(2) P.L.R. 223. Therefore, we regret our inability to agree with the learned State counsel and reject the interpretation preferred by the respondents in the impugned orders dated 7.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) and 18.8.2005 (Annexure P-5).
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, impugned orders dated 7.6.2005 (Annexure P-
3) and 18.8.2005 (Annexure P-5) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for offering her employment on compassionate basis in lieu of the death of her husband, who has died on 5.3.2004. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
4. At the first blush this case seems to be covered by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Kamlesh (supra). But the scrutiny of the file reveals that the father of petitioner No. 2 died on 12.2.2004 and thereafter various representations were made by the petitioners. The instant petition was filed on 15.11.2010 i.e. after 6 years, 9 months and 3 days of the death of the bread earner of the family. As per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, 138 the immediate urgency created by death of the father of petitioner No. 2 would not survive. It is also well settled that the compassionate appointment is not a mode of entry into service but it is only to help the surviving members of the family to overcome sudden financial CWP No. 20349 of 2010 5 crises created by the sudden death of bread winner, as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, Thirumalai, (1996) 3 SCC 394 and National Hydro Electric Power Corpn. v. Nanak Chand, Chand, (2004) (2004) 12 SCC
487. 487 Such an appointment cannot be secured as a matter of right as it is an exception to Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
5. As a sequel to the above discussion, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE May 4, 2012 PKapoor