Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 September, 2014
Bench: Surya Kant, Jaspal Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.18571 of 2014
Date of Decision: September 09, 2014
Sukhwinder Singh .....Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.
Present : Mr.J.R.Syal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
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?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioner lost his father on 23.08.2007 while he was working as a Conductor in the respondent-department. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. His claim was considered. It appears that at one point of time, his claim was rejected on a hyper-technical ground that more than three years had passed after the death of his father. Thereafter, the claim was reconsidered under the revised instructions and accepted on merits but the petitioner's name has been kept in the priority list at Sr. No.57. There are 56 persons placed higher than the petitioner out of which 24 are widows of the deceased-employees. 5% posts have been reserved for appointment on compassionate ground. The Tribunal in the second round of litigation, has disposed of the petitioner's petition with a direction that he shall also be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground as per his turn in the waiting list prepared by the respondent-
MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.10.10 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.18571 of 2014 [2]organization.
The petitioner, however, is still aggrieved, as according to him he is entitled to prioritised appointment because of the directions earlier issued by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.04.2012 (Annexure P-8).
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the order dated 17.04.2012.
In our considered view, (i) the said order cannot be construed as a command to the respondent-authorities to offer appointment to the petitioner out of turn; (ii) neither the Tribunal has passed such an order nor it could do so to direct the respondents to ignore the superior claim of other dependents of deceased employees; (iii) the relief sought by the petitioner for immediate appointment can be granted only at the cost of one or the other dependent of the deceased employees who are above the petitioner in the waiting list and still awaiting appointments. They include 24 widows of the deceased employees also. No direction by this Court or by the Tribunal prejudicial to their interest can be issued.
For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and dismiss this petition with a clarification that the directions issued by the Tribunal dated 23.04.2014 shall be given effect as and when the petitioner's turn comes.
Dasti.
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
September 09, 2014 [JASPAL SINGH]
Mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR
2014.10.10 11:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh