CWP No.9413 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.9413 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.04.2010 **** Nitin Kaushik . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? **** Present: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Challenge in this Civil Writ Petition is to an order dated 14.09.2007 (Annexure P8) passed by the respondents whereby, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, has been declined on the ground that he has applied after an inordinate delay. (2). Facts in terse is that the mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Prem Lata Sharma was serving in the Department of Transports, Government of Punjab. While in service, she unfortunately CWP No.9413 of 2009.doc - 2 – passed away on 15.05.1996. Immediately after her demise, the father of the petitioner applied to the respondents to provide employment to the legal heirs of the deceased-employee (Smt. Prem Lata Sharma), who was survived by two children, namely, the petitioner and a daughter, namely, Ritu Sharma. As the petitioner was admittedly minor at the time of the death of her mother, it was also requested by the petitioner’s father in that application to keep one post reserved till the legal heirs of the deceased-employee attain majority. Subsequently, the petitioner’s father got re-married but due to alleged abhorrent behaviour and attitude of their step-mother that the petitioner and his sister were forced to shift with their grand-mother who is obviously an old woman. (3). No sooner the petitioner attained majority, he approached the authorities seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 18.05.2000. Various informations were sought by the respondents to which the petitioner duly responded. The petitioner, who is a Matriculate, was interviewed on 02.07.2004 but to his dismay, CWP No.9413 of 2009.doc - 3 – the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he does not fulfill the criteria laid down under the Government policy dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P6). (4). Similar issue has been broadly dealt with by this Court in CWP No.19234 of 2008 titled as Rajwinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others , wherein while upholding the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, this Court concluded as follows:- “For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 09.03.2006 (Annexure P5) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner under the ex gratia scheme on a suitable post within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that meanwhile, if there is any amendment in the Policy decision of the State Government, the claim of the petitioner for appointment shall be considered as per the ex gratia Scheme/Policy which was in vogue at the time when the father of the petitioner died or when the petitioner acquired the eligibility for employment as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheela Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008(4)SCT 475.” (5). The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of Rajwinder Kumar’s case (supra). The CWP No.9413 of 2009.doc - 4 – respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on a suitable post within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 27.04.2010 vishal shonkar