CWP No.20474 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.20474 of 2008 Date of decision: 04.12.2008 Gurpreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. B.S. Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner in this case has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision dated 13th June, 2005 of the High Powered Committee whereby his case for appointment to a Class III post under “Appointment of Honours & Gratitude to the Dependent of War Heroes” policy was rejected. The petitioner has further sought a writ to declare any instruction, rule and regulation prohibiting employment of 'married son' as illegal and arbitrary. Brief factual matrix of the case as stated in the petition is that Baljit Singh real brother of the petitioner was enrolled in Army on 25th January, 2001. However, he died while on active duty in 'Operation Parakaram' on 20th November, 2002. As Baljit Singh was a bachelor at the time of his death, his parents were given liberalized family pension by the Army authorities apart from ex-gratia and other benefits, being next legal heirs/next of kin. However, State of Punjab also announced certain benefits for the kin of those persons who were killed in war or CWP No.20474 of 2008 2 war like operations, vide its policies dated 19th August, 1999 and 20th August, 2002. Pursuant to the said policy, State of Punjab gave Rs.2.00 lacs as ex-gratia to the parents of the deceased. Under the same policy, the petitioner, who is brother of the deceased soldier, applied for a government job claiming to be dependent of the deceased. The case of the petitioner was referred by the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Ludhiana after completion of formalities to the concerned authorities. According to the petitioner, the authorities did not take any decision on the issue for quite a long time. Ultimately the petitioner served a demand notice dated 12th September, 2008 on the respondents for appointment to a Class-III post. In his reply to the said demand notice, Director, Sainik Welfare Punjab informed vide letter dated 7th October, 2008 (Annexure P-13) that his case for appointment had been rejected by the High Powered Committee on 13.6.2005 on the ground that he was 'married' and thus not a dependent of the deceased. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this court. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant record annexed with the petition. The counsel has contended that rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was married, is absolutely arbitrary as while determining as to who is the dependent of the deceased, there can be no discrimination on the ground of marital status. The counsel has further submitted that at the time of submitting the application, the CWP No.20474 of 2008 3 petitioner was a bachelor and thus fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility. His marriage subsequently could not debar him from availing the benefits of the policy. It has been further contended that marriage of a sister may have some financial aspect attached to it but marriage of a dependent brother does not by itself show that he is no longer dependent. According to the counsel, the whole object of providing employment under the policy would be defeated if a distinction is made between married and unmarried brother. The distinction sought to be made between married and unmarried brother, bears no reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Such a distinction according to the counsel, thus needs to be struck down. The relevant provision from the policy dated 19th August, 1999, Annexure P-6 to the petition, reads thus: “16. It is clarified that for appointment under this policy, the following shall be considered as dependent members of the War Heroes. “Widow or wife or a dependent son or dependent un-married daughter or adopted dependent son or adopted un-married daughter. However, in case the 'War Hero' was un-married but had other dependents on him, then, one of the dependent un-married brothers/un-married sisters will be eligible for consideration for appointment under this policy.” According to the aforesaid provision, the petitioner is not entitled to claim appointment as dependent of war hero as he is not an unmarried brother. The counsel has assailed this provision on various CWP No.20474 of 2008 4 grounds as stated above. We are not convinced with the argument of the counsel that there can be no classification on the basis of marital status. For the purpose of determining whether an applicant can be considered as dependent on the deceased, certain guidelines have been laid down. In case a war hero was unmarried at the time of his death, then one of the dependent unmarried brothers/unmarried sisters has been made eligible for consideration for appointment under the said policy. This obviously means that a married brother/sister is not eligible to claim appointment under the policy. We are not convinced that such a policy is arbitrary or the classification on the basis of marital status is bad. The policy appears to be based on the logic that a married brother or sister would be self-sufficient and financially independent. He, therefore, would not be eligible to claim appointment under the policy of the Government meant for dependent brother or sister. The policy lays down a demarcation in this respect. Needless to say that a married brother, who would have a wife dependent on him and perhaps children, cannot claim to be a dependent himself. We thus find no force in the argument of the petitioner that the classification between married and unmarried brother, has no reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The object of the policy is clearly to provide succor to a person who was wholly- solely dependent upon a soldier who died while on active duty. As regards the argument of the counsel that the petitioner was unmarried at the time of submitting the application and thus he CWP No.20474 of 2008 5 should have been given benefit of the policy, we find no force in the same. The marital status of the petitioner had to be seen on the date, his case was considered for appointment by the High Powered Committee. If on the said date the petitioner's marital status was not single, he would not be eligible for appointment. The case of the petitioner was considered by the High Powered Committee on 13th June, 2005 and was rejected on the ground that he was married. We find no legal infirmity with the impugned order. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE December 04, 2008 'rajpal'