IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17326 of 2009 Date of Decision: 05.09.2011 Sanjeev Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 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 : Mr. S.S.Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State of Punjab. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) The petitioner seeks a direction for his appointment as a Sweeper (Safai Sewak) on compassionate ground on regular basis. The case unfolds the unfortunate story as to how the persons belonging to poorest section of the society are exploited by the Police Authorities under the garb of self styled executive instructions issued by the Head of the Department. This Court has not come across a single instance where a senior police officer dies in harness and his dependent family member is offered appointment on daily wages or contingent basis only. Infact, best of the posts are made available to them, many a times by overlooking the judgment of CWP No. 17326 of 2009 [2] the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana' 1994 C.S.Cases (SC) 138 On the other hand, when an occasion to appoint of a Class-III and Class-IV employee arises, all the Rules and Instructions are invoked to scuttle the employment. The instant case is also no exception. The only plea taken in the reply filed by the respondents to deny regular appointment to the petitioner is that he agreed for his appointment on 'contingent paid post'. How a son of a poor sweeper, who himself is running from pillar to post for his employment as a Sweeper on compassionate grounds, would understand the implications of phrases like 'contingent paid post', is beyond one's comprehension. The fact of the matter is that the father of the petitioner was a Sweeper in the police Department and he unfortunately died while in service on 03.01.2006 leaving behind his wife, three sons and two daughters. The petitioner applied for his employment on compassionate ground under the ex-gratia policy and his turn having come as per the priority list that he has been appointed against a vacant post but as a 'temporary contingent paid' Sweeper. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the appointment of the petitioner as a sweeper on 'temporary contingent paid' basis is wholly unfair, unjust and per se arbitrary. The solitary object of giving employment under the ex-gratia policy is to secure the source of livelihood for the family of the deceased employee. If a sword of temporary/contingent paid assignment keeps on hanging on the neck CWP No. 17326 of 2009 [3] of the petitioner it is obvious that the very object behind the policy shall be frustrated. The non-application of mind by the authorities is further writ large as despite availability of a regular vacant post, the petitioner has been offered appointment on 'temporary contingent basis'. For the reasons above stated, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be treated to have been appointed as sweeper on regular basis w.e.f. the date of his original appointment with all the consequential benefits. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of Rs. 10000/- to be paid by the respondents. (SURYA KANT) 05.09.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'