C.W.P No. 1116 of 2007 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 1116 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : September 15, 2010 Smt. Krishana Devi, ...... Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K.Gupta, Addl. A.G Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) C.M No.4393 of 2010 For the reasons recorded, C.M is allowed, the order dated 23.9.2009 is recalled and C.M No.13268 of 2009 is restored to its original number. C.M No.13268 of 2009 For the reasons recorded, C.M is allowed, the order dated 16.4.2009 is recalled and the main writ petition is restored to its original number. C.W.P No. 1116 of 2007 (O&M) ::2:: C.W.P No.1116 of 2007 With the consent of counsel for the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for hearing. The precise grouse of the petitioner is that her husband had died on 24.4.1998 and that vide order dated 19.1.1999, she was appointed on a class IV post, while she could have been appointed as a Constable. Primary reliance is placed on similar cases where also such relief was granted to the widows of the deceased personnel. In the written statement the plea taken is that the cases of persons with whom parity was sought were not similar to that of the petitioner. In one case, the deceased was a Sub Inspector. In the other two cases mentioned, the dependent widows were 10+2 pass, whereas the petitioner is only 10th pass. In my opinion, this argument cannot be lightly brushed away. Apart from this, it can also not be lost sight of that the petitioner filed the instant petition after 8 long years. Even though it may not be strictly applicable but the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others vs Umadevi and others, 2006(2) SCT 462 would also mitilate against the case of the petitioner. Once the petitioner has been appointed, she cannot claim that she should have been appointed only as a Constable. Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 15, 2010. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 1116 of 2007 (O&M) ::3::