IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.822 of 1992 Date of decision: December 22, 2008. Harminder Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Ravi Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks a mandamus for his appointment on compassionate grounds under the ex-gratia scheme. The petitioner's father was working as a Junior Engineer in the Department of Development and Panchayats, Punjab when he died in a fatal accident while on duty on 2.10.1987. The petitioner was a student at that time. His mother represented for the petitioner's employment under the ex- gratia scheme on completion of his education. The petitioner completed his graduation in the year 1990 and represented on 27.12.1990 for his appointment as Panchayat Officer or Taxation Inspector. The respondents, on the other hand, offered him appointment as Gram Sewak or Clerk vide order dated 26.3.1992, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure R-1 with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. While admitting this writ petition, the motion bench passed the following order on June 2, 1992:- “Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offer of appointment to the petitioner in Class III Service was made as far back in 1988. The petitioner did not avail of the offer as he was still undergoing studies. He graduated in 1991. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that the petitioner should be considered, at least, for the post of Panchayat Officer or Taxation Inspector. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, is that there is no policy decision of the State Government linking the post to be offered with the qualifications possessed by a person. This is obviously a matter which requires looking into. We, therefore, admit the writ petition and in the meanwhile to avoid undue hardship to the petitioner direct that without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner, he may, if so advised, accept the offer contained in Annexure R.1 and join the service offered by the respondents. This is subject to the decision of the writ petition.” It, thus, appears that pursuant to the aforementioned order, the petitioner might have joined as a Clerk or a Gram Sewak in the Department of Development and Panchayats, Punjab. The question which requires determination is as to whether or not the petitioner can claim appointment as a Panchayat Officer or Taxation Inspector as a matter of right under the ex-gratia scheme. The law has been well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1994)4 SCC 138. In the light of the ratio of the said decision, the petitioner could be offered appointment to a post lower than the post held by his deceased father. The petitioner's father was a Junior Engineer, i.e., a class-III post. The petitioner was also offered the class-III post of Gram Sewak or Clerk, though of a lower pay scale. The action of the respondents per se does not appear to be illegal or arbitrary. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he has been discriminated in the matter of appointment under the ex-gratia policy or that there is any express provision in the policy or some other statutory rules which may entitle him to claim appointment on the post asked for. No case to issue the desired mandamus is made out. Dismissed. December 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge