CWP No.17912 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.17912 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.10.2010 **** Ram Phal . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Power Corp. & Ors. . . . . . 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. VK Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Mr. Anil Kumar, Sharma, learned Addl. AG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply at this stage. (2). The petitioner’s father was killed by the terrorists in the year 1990. He now seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to – (i) appoint him on compassionate grounds; and (ii) release the ‘family pension’ admissible to his mother (since deceased) in favour of the CWP No.17912 of 2010.doc - 2 – petitioner and his sister under the policy decision dated 23.11.2004 (Annexure P11). (3). It is averred that the father of the petitioner, namely, Gaja Dhar joined as a Chowkidar with the erstwhile Board (now Powercom) on 12.01.1973 and was later on promoted to various posts including as Lineman. The petitioner’s father was unfortunately killed by the terrorists on 13.12.1990 while he was on his way after attending the duties. The petitioner was a few months old child at that time as he was born on 07.02.1990. On attaining the age of majority, the petitioner moved his case for appointment on compassionate grounds under the ex gratia policy of the Government and it was after a long correspondence that the Assistant Engineer, Sub Urban Sub Division, Guru Har Sahai vide his memo dated 22.05.2008 (Annexure P10) recommended the petitioner’s case for appointment to the higher authorities but no final decision has been taken thereupon so far. (4). The second grievance of the petitioner is that no ‘family pension’ was granted to his mother during her lifetime till she unfortunately passed away on 19.06.2007. The petitioner and his sister are, thus, CWP No.17912 of 2010.doc - 3 – entitled to receive the ‘family pension’ after the death of their mother which has also not been granted. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the mitigating circumstances coupled with the policy decision(s) taken by the respondents from time to time, prima facie, it appears that both the claims put forth by the petitioner deserve acceptance. However, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case at this stage, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide both the above-mentioned claims of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 04.10.2010 vishal shonkar