Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2512 (PNJ)

Smt. Kamla Rani v. State Of Punjab

2010-09-01

RITU BAHRI

body2010
Judgment Ritu Bahri, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 19.6.1988 (Anneuxre P-4) whereby the Resolution of the Municipal Committee, Patiala dated 19.10.1987, appointing the petitioner to the post of Clerk in the Municipal Committee, Patiala, has been annulled by the Director, Local Self Government, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No.2). 2. The petitioner was appointed as Peon (Sewadar), Class IV service in the Municipal Committee, Patiala by respondent No.3 vide order dated 6.1.1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 300-430/- in place of her deceased husband. Ashok Kumar, who was an Octroi Clerk in the Municipal Committee, Patiala. Application was given by the petitioner being widow of the deceased Government Employee as per Punjab Government Circular dated 18.4.1973. 3. Vide order No. 352 dated 19.10.1987, Smt. Kamla Devi was appointed as Octroi Clerk by the Municipal Committee, Patiala. On examination, the Government found that this appointment was against the Government Instructions. Regarding category of persons to be employed in place of deceased employee, case of the petitioner was to be considered only once at the time of initial appointment and not again for the purpose of promotion after appointment. The Administrator, Municipal Committee, Patiala, under Section 236 of the Municipal Act, 1911 annuled order dated 19.10.1987 passed by the Municipal Committee. The main reason for setting aside the order dated 19.10.1987 was that preference is to be given to the dependent of the deceased employee at the time of first appointment and not during the subsequent promotion. 4. This order dated 19.10.1987 (Annexure P-4) has been challenged by filing the present writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file very carefully and thoroughly. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Municipal Committee, Patiala had passed the order of promotion of the petitioner once she had qualified for the post of Octroi Clerk after passing matriculation. At the time of appointment as Sewadar, she was not matriculate. Reliance has been place on a decision in a case Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 1 1987(4) Services Law Reporter, 762. At the time of appointment as Sewadar, she was not matriculate. Reliance has been place on a decision in a case Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 1 1987(4) Services Law Reporter, 762. The facts of this case are distinguishable as in Satish Kumars case (supra) The question before the Court was whether the Municipal Committee was competent to fill up the posts under its administrative control by making appointments by direct recruitment or by promotion so long as those posts are not specifically in the cadre of Provincialised Services. The ratio of the judgment in that case was that while exercising powers under Section 236 of the Act,the State Government has to give a specific finding to show that the action of the Municipal Committee was not in conformity with law. 7. In the present case, after availing opportunity of compassionate appointment as Peon, the petitioner could not claim a second appointment/promotion to the post of Clerk on becoming matriculate. 8. In a similar situation on similar facts writ petition was filed by one Sudesh Kumari which was dismissed by this Court in Sudesh Kumari v. Sate of Punjab and another, 2 2004(3) Recent Services Judgments 596. The petitioner in this case was seeking appointment to the post of Assistant on compassionate ground. She was earlier appointed as Clerk on compassionate basis on the death of her father. Her claim for appointment to the post of Assistant by this Court was rejected on the ground that the situation of financial crisis faced by family of the petitioner due to sudden demise of her father was tide over by offering her appointment as clerk which she too accepted after improving her qualification after the appointment to the post of Assistant. Therefore, in the present case the petitioner by accepting the post of Sewadar had utilized the benefit of compassionate appointment. The Municipal Committee, was not justified in giving appointment of promotion in the year 1987 by appointing her as Octroi Clerk. 9. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.