IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1565 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 01, 2010. Veena Kumari .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.A.K.Vermani, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is widow of late Sh.Gurcharan Lal who was enrolled as S.P.O. in the Police Department, Punjab. While working as such, Gurcharan Lal was short-listed and selected for absorption as a C.W.P.No .1565 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Constable and his name figured at Sr.No.43 amongst the suitable S.P.Os (Annexure P-3). As the bad luck would have been, Gurcharan Lal passed away before his formal absorption as a Constable. The petitioner-his widow sought but has been declined ex-gratia employment on the ground that her deceased-husband was a daily wager and in terms of the Government Policy, only dependents of regular employees, who died in harness, can seek appointment on compassionate ground. Having heard counsel for the parties, I find that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the Director General of Police, Punjab, has not taken into consideration the fact that the deceased-husband of the petitioner was selected and short-listed for absorption as a regular Constable. The delay in ministerial exercise and meanwhile an act of God in snatching the petitioner's sole bread earner from her, are the mitigate circumstances which have been apparently over-looked while passing the impugned order dated 3.6.2008 (Annexure P-4). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 3.6.2008 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the facts noticed above and as per the Government Policy. Dasti. 01-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE