Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1262 (PNJ)

Dharamveer v. State of Punjab

2015-07-13

ARUN PALLI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arun Palli, J. The present application has been filed for restoration of the petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 20.05.2015, passed by this Court. For the reasons set out in the application, that is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Order dated 20.05.2015 passed by this Court is recalled and the petition is restored to its original number. 2. C.M. stands disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No. 25531 of 2014 3. A writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for, so as to quash the impugned order/report dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure P5), to an extent the petitioner has been denied appointment on compassionate ground. 4. Hari Singh i.e. father of the petitioner joined as Beldar in Ranjit Sagar Dam Project on 29.05.1985 on work charge basis. He left the job on 19.01.1992 without any sanctioned leave/intimation to the competent authority. As a result, his services were terminated on 14.08.1992 w.e.f. 19.01.1992 on account of willful absence despite repeated reminders issued to him by the Department. Subsequently, heirs of Hari Singh reported his death on 01.12.1992 to the Department. In fact, a Civil Writ Petition No. 4612 of 2011 was filed by his widow Smt. Khimi Devi claiming retiral benefits and a government job for her son Dharamveer (petitioner). Pursuant to an interim order dated 20.11.2013 passed in the said petition, this Court had issued the directions: "In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to examine the claim raised in the petition to satisfy themselves and to see whether the averments made regarding the inability of Hari Singh on account of his illness are correct and to submit their report on or before the next date. Adjourned to 13.05.2014." 5. Pursuant to the order dated 20.11.2013, an inquiry committee was constituted by the Department. On an analysis of the matter in issue, the inquiry committee concluded that the inability of the deceased Hari Singh to resume duty was genuine as he was hospitalized during the period 17.05.1991 to 19.06.1991 and 22.07.1992 to 30.09.1992 and he eventually died of Tuberculosis on 01.12.1992, as reported by Medical Superintendent Hospital, NSCB Zonal Hospital Mandi (HP). As a result, the Committee recommended that all the service dues of the deceased be calculated and released upto the date of his death i.e. 01.12.1992. However, the claim as regards appointment was declined vide order/report dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure P5). As a result, the Committee recommended that all the service dues of the deceased be calculated and released upto the date of his death i.e. 01.12.1992. However, the claim as regards appointment was declined vide order/report dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure P5). That being so, a Civil Writ Petition No. 4612 of 2011 was disposed of as infructuous on August 19, 2014 by this Court. However, petitioner was set at liberty to assail the order/report dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure P5) vide which he was denied the appointment on compassionate grounds. 6. An analysis of the order being assailed reveals that the claim of the petitioner was declined since the father of the petitioner was working as work charge employee till the time of his death and in the wake of Punjab Government instructions dependant of a work charge employee could not be appointed on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the instructions that are purported to have been issued by the Government of Punjab and are reproduced in para No. 9 of the petition. In reference to note (iii) at page 13 of the petition, she submits that the said instructions take within its sweep even the work charge staff and thus the reason assigned in support of the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is misconceived. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. 8. On a due and thoughtful consideration of the matter in issue, I am of the considered view that the instant petition is devoid of merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed for the reasons that are being recorded hereinafter. 9. Concededly, father of the petitioner, who unfortunately died on 01.12.1992 was engaged as work charge employee with the Department. In fact, note (iii) at page 13 postulates that government servant for the purpose of the said instructions means a government servant appointed on regular basis and not one working on daily wage or casual apprentice or ad hoc or contract or reemployment or on 89 days basis. Note (iii) if read in this context crystallizes the position further as it envisaged that only that work charge staff as has been confirmed would be covered by expression "government servant" mentioned in note (ii). Concededly, late Hari Singh was never confirmed as he continued in service on work charge basis till his death. Note (iii) if read in this context crystallizes the position further as it envisaged that only that work charge staff as has been confirmed would be covered by expression "government servant" mentioned in note (ii). Concededly, late Hari Singh was never confirmed as he continued in service on work charge basis till his death. Nothing is brought on record to show that the services were ever regularised by the Department. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any other instructions to suggest that even the dependants of a work charge employee were/are entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, claim of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Even otherwise, though unfortunate, Hari Singh died 23 years ago on 28.12.1992. Therefore, with the efflux of time, the very purpose on which compassionate employments are afforded has lost its significance and purpose. No other argument was advanced. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.