CWP No.2467 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.2467 of 2005 Date of decision: Sept. 16, 2008 Sita Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6. Rajan Gupta, J. The prayer in the present writ petition is for appointment on compassionate ground as husband of the petitioner, who was working with the respondents on work charged basis since 16th June, 1987, had died on 18th February, 1997, after rendering service for about ten years. The husband of the petitioner Banarsi Dass was appointed as ATO on 16th June, 1987 in the Punjab State Tubewell corporation. He was further promoted as Tubewell Operator on work charged basis w.e.f. 2nd November, 1988. Banarsi Dass expired on 18th February, 1997 while still in service leaving behind his wife (the present petitioner), an old mother and a minor son. The wife who is only educated upto 5th class, submitted an application to respondent No.5 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. She, inter alia, cited the case of one Rita CWP No.2467 of 2005 2 Sharma (respondent No.7 herein) who was given appointment on compassionate ground and whose husband was also a work charged employee with the Corporation. The petitioner has averred that she was given assurance that her case would be considered in due course. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 30th January, 2004 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition before this court seeking the same relief as in the present writ petition i.e. CWP No.17861 of 2001. The same was disposed of on 31st October, 2003 with the following order:- “The husband of the petitioner was appointed as A.T.O. in the year 1987 on work-charged basis and was promoted as Tubewell Operator in the year 1988. He died on 18.02.1997 in the same capacity. The petitioner has sought appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner's claim has been rejected vide order Annexure P-5 primarily on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was a work charged employee and no instructions had been issued by the Government to give compassionate appointment to the heirs of such employees. In the light of the fact that the petitioner's husband had been working with the respondents for 10 years before his death, it would be appropriate that the official respondents should consider the petitioner's case sympathetically. We, therefore, relegate the petitioner to approach the official respondents once again. Let appropriate order be passed within four months from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to this respondent. CWP No.2467 of 2005 3 Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Dasti order. Sd/- H.S. Bedi Judge Sd/- VINAY MITTAL 31.10.2003 Judge” It is thereafter that order Annexure P-10 has been passed on the ground that there is no Government policy/rules for offering appointment on compassionate ground to heir of deceased work charged employee. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 6 wherein it has been reiterated that compassionate appointment cannot be given to an heir of a work charged employee. The respondents have also stated in the reply that the case of the petitioner was referred to the Government as a special case, in relaxation of the Punjab Government Rules, on the lines of the case of respondent No.7 i.e. Rita Sharma widow of another work charged employee. However, the State Government rejected the case on the ground that there was no provision for providing employment to the dependents of deceased work charged employees. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that name of the husband of the petitioner was included in the seniority list circulated on 16.12.1998 at Serial No.37. It is due to his death that his services could not be regularised. Otherwise, his juniors were regularised on 25th CWP No.2467 of 2005 4 September, 1998. The counsel has placed reliance on Minutes of the 138th Meeting of the Board of Directors of Punjab State Tubewell Corporation, held on 25th September, 1998 in order to contend that had the husband of the petitioner been alive, he would have been regularised in terms of Resolution 138.14 of the said meeting. The counsel has further contended that in the said meeting, it had been decided to regularise all those work charged employees who had completed more than five years of service. Reliance has been placed on a judgment delivered by this court in case titled as Smt. Saroj widow of Darshan Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1996 (3) RSJ 809 wherein a direction was given to notionally consider the case of a deceased employee for regularisation under the relevant instructions. In case it was found that the said employee would have been entitled to regularisation, then the case of his wife for appointment on compassionate ground could be considered. In the present case, the petitioner has contended that her husband was entitled to be regularised as he had completed more than five years of service; his name was included in the list of employees to be regularised vide letter No.6755-66/PSTC/CTC/27-ER dated 16th December, 1998 at Serial No.37. The petitioner has also placed reliance on 138th Meeting dated 25th September, 1998, Annexure P-13 to contend that in the said meeting it was decided that employees with more than five years services were entitled to be regularised whereas husband of the petitioner had put in almost 10 years of service when he suddenly CWP No.2467 of 2005 5 expired. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, a direction is hereby issued to the respondents No.2 to 6 to notionally consider whether husband of the petitioner was entitled to regularisation in the light of the instructions as well as the 138th meeting of the Board of Directors, Annexure P-13. In case it is found that the husband of the petitioner was entitled to be regularised in accordance with the rules/instructions, then the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate ground be considered in accordance with law. The writ petition is thus allowed with the aforesaid direction, which may be carried out within a period of three months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE September 16, 2008 'rajpal'