C.W.P. No. 18742 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18742 of 2009 Date of decision: 07.12.2009 Balwinder Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been moved to challenge the appointment of respondents No. 5 to 35 as Contingent Attendants on D.C. Rates by respondent No. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the petitioners are dependants of deceased employees of the board, who have been granted compensation @ Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lac only) in view of the policy decision (Annexure P-1) instead of appointment on compassionate grounds. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that respondents No. 5 to 35 have been appointed in illegal manner without inviting any applications or referring the case to the employment exchange. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that their appointment is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Fertilizers Ltd. and others Vs. Somvir Singh, 2006 C.W.P. No. 18742 of 2009 -2- (3) RSJ 339. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Punjab State Electricity Board vide its decision No. 19/GB/L/2 dated 7.6.2000 had decided to provide the attendants at the camp office of Chairman, Members and Secretary of the Board. The decision reads as under: - “The decision taken by the Punjab State Electricity Board on its 6/2000 meeting held on 6.7.2000 at Patiala on the above item is reproduced below: - Approved. It was further decided that the attendants (one each to Chairman, Members and Secretary) to be employed on contingent basis would be recommended by the Chairman. Members and Secretary respectively as per their own choice of the person of confidence and appointment letters would be issued by the Secretariat. A certificate to the effect that decision of the Board has been implemented may be furnished to this office immediately.” Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that the respondents have been appointed according to serial No. 94 of the book of giving powers of the PSEB. The petitioners have not placed on record the decision at serial No. 94 of the book of giving powers of PSEB, under which the respondents have been appointed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that respondents No. 5 and 6 are also sons of deceased employees who were similarly situated with the petitioners, therefore, their appointment C.W.P. No. 18742 of 2009 -3- is in any case bad in law. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be noticed to be rejected, as respondents No. 5 and 6 have not been appointed on compassionate ground, but on DC rates, under the powers vested with the Board for appointment of attendants at DC rates. The reading of Annexure P-4 would show that certain senior officers have been given a privilege of having an employee of their choice at DC rates, therefore, the appointment of respondents No. 5 to 35 being on DC rates for a particular officer cannot be said to be in violation of any regulation, nor the judgment relied upon by the petitioners is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the appointment of respondents No. 5 to 35 is not in a cadre on regular basis, but by way of privilege given to senior officers, to have attendant of their choice. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge December 07, 2009 R.S.