Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3117 (PNJ)

Pargat Singh v. Food Corporation Of India

2006-08-03

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, KIRAN ANAND LALL

body2006
Judgment , J. 1. The father of the petitioner is stated to have commenced to discharge duties as a handling transport labourer under a contractor for the Food Corporation of India in 1993. During the course of arguments, it was acknowledged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that till the death of the petitioners father in harness on 24.12.1996, his father continued to discharge duties as a handling transport labourer under the Three Members Committee constituted by the Food Corporation of India. 2. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, who was the dependent son of his father, claims compassionate appointment on account of the fact that his father had died in harness. This claim of the petitioner emerges from a settlement arrived at between the Food Corporation of India and the Employees Union on 5.4.1995 (which was circulated on 29.5.1995 ). 3. Despite the fact that the settlement expressly noticed that the same would be effective from 1.1.1995 to 31.12.1997, it is the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, based on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s. D. J. Bahadur and Ors. that the settlement under reference would continue till it was superseded by a subsequent settlement. It is not necessary for us to delve into this issue for an effective determination of the controversy in hand, and as such, we refrain from recording any conclusion in this behalf. 4. In so far as the issue of compassionate appointment is concerned, although the father of the petitioner died on 24.12.1996, the first representation was made by the petitioner, for seeking compassionate appointment on 27.6.2003 i. e. after a period of 61/2 years from the date of the death of his father. The issue to be adjudicated upon, therefore is, whether it was open to the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment at such a belated stage. The issue to be adjudicated upon, therefore is, whether it was open to the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment at such a belated stage. Learned Counsel for the respondents, in order to advance the aforesaid contention, has invited our attention to a decision of the Food Corporation of India dated 22/20.1.1998 (appended to the written statement as Annexure R-III) wherein in paragraph 6 it has been expressly provided, that compassionate engagement would be allowed within a period of three months from the date of an employee dying in harness, although there is a stipulation/exception to this rule, i. e. that there can be extension of the said period at the hands of the competent authority, in exceptional and deserving circumstances. Various decisions of the Apex Court lay down, that the purpose of compassionate appointment under a scheme, in the nature of the one in hand, is to provide an avenue of subsistence, to a family placed in financial hardship, on account of the sudden death of its sole bread-winner. Reference in this behalf may be made to Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s. State of Haryana etc. Even in the absence of the aforesaid decision dated 22/20.1.1998 the respondents were well within their rights to have denied appointment on compassionate grounds where a request for the same was not made soon after the death of the employee in harness. For the aforesaid reason itself, we are satisfied that the claim made at the hands of the petitioner, through the instant writ petition filed in 2004, almost 5 years after the death of his father, wherein the first representation had been made to the Food Corporation of India more than 6 years after his fathers death, was clearly misconceived. 5. We are satisfied that the respondents rightfully rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Dismissed. .