IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.19511 of 2008 Date of Decision : May 16, 2011. Surjit Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Onkar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Puri, Additional Advocate General, 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks a mandamus for appointment of his son Gajjan Singh on some Class-III post in terms of the Punjab Government Policy framed for the 'Honour and Gratitude' to the dependents of the War Heroes and Army Personnel who have achieved martyrdom. This is an admitted case that Kulbir Singh son of the petitioner was in the Indian Army and he made a supreme sacrifice in the operation “PRAKARAM' on 28th December, 2001. The Government of Punjab has framed a Policy dated 19.8.1999 (Annexure P-2) for 'Appointments of Honour and Gratitude in the State Class-III and Class-IV services to the dependent member of the CWP No.19511 of 2008 [2] families of War Heroes'. The above said Policy defines the “War Heroes to mean a Defence Service Personnel or Para-Military Forces personnel to be a bonafide resident of Punjab State and is killed or discharged from service on account of disability suffered by him while fighting a war declared by the Government of India.....”. Para Nos.3 & 4 of the above said Policy Circular further provide as below:- “3. The instructions regarding offer of Class-I and Class-II appointments under this policy will be issued separately. However, while making appointments to the State Class-II and IV services in the light of above decisions, qualifications for various non-technical posts shall be as under:- i) For Class-IV posts : No Qualification. ii) For Class-III posts : Matriculation. The condition of the experience prescribed for any of these posts (including technical posts) shall stand waived off for appointment under this policy. An appointee under this policy shall be altogether exempt from acquiring the requisite knowledge of Punjabi language under the rules. 4. The lowest jobs offered in a Class-III will be Senior Assistant or its equivalent. (emphasis applied) xx xx xx xx” The petitioner moved an application for appointment of his son Gajjan Singh on a Class-III post in terms of the above stated Policy Circular, in the year 2002. The petitioner's son Gajjan Singh at that time was a student of matriculation and soon thereafter, he passed the same. While the case was in process, the son of the petitioner completed 10+2 CWP No.19511 of 2008 [3] qualification also. The respondents in their reply-affidavit dated 31.3.2009 have candidly averred that the case of appointment of son of the petitioner was submitted before the High Powered Committee headed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab on 1.11.2007 but it was deferred as meanwhile some other cases regarding dependency of the candidates on the martyrs were directed to be verified by their respective Deputy Commissioners. Suffice it to mention that there was no objection whatsoever against the petitioner's son for appointment on a Class-III post. In sum and substance, the plea taken is that the State of Punjab was reconsidering the issue of dependency of the war martyrs and as such the petitioner's son was not given appointment. The respondents have thereafter filed additional reply dated 10.5.2011, inter-alia, maintaining that vide the Notification dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure R-3), the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 have been amended prescribing the 'graduation' as the minimum qualification for appointment to Class-III post of Clerk. According to the respondents, the son of the petitioner being not a graduate, he can now be appointed on Class-IV post only as he is ineligible for appointment to Class-III post in view of the amendment in the qualification vide Notification dated 10.2.2009. The question as to whether the qualification prescribed vide Notification dated 10.2.2009 shall apply to those cases where the right of consideration for compassionate employment had already accrued or such a qualification shall have the prospective effect only, came for consideration CWP No.19511 of 2008 [4] before this Court in CWP No.10859 of 2009 (Sunita Devi versus State of Punjab and others decided on 8.2.2010 and it was ruled that where the deceased passed away before 10.2.2009 and the eligible dependent even if applied and/or was considered after the said date, in such case the appointment can not be denied on the plea of ineligibility. In the instant case, the son of the petitioner, namely, Kulbir Singh made supreme sacrifice for the nation in the year 2001 and the policy dated 19.8.1999 (Annexure P-2) was very much in force at that time. There is no delay on the part of the petitioner as he immediately applied for appointment of his son Gajjan Singh in terms of the Policy dated 19.8.1999 in the year 2002 itself. It is for the respondents to explain as to why the case of the petitioner's son was put under the carpet as the High Power Committee headed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab took five long years to consider his claim and that too when it took no categoric decision in the matter. In these circumstances, the respondents cannot be allowed to have premium on their own inaction. Suffice it to mention that the Notification dated 10.2.2009 cannot be applied in the case like the one in hand where the martyr made died in the year 2001 and the petitioner's son also acquired eligibility and applied for employment in the year 2002 itself. The red-tapism in such like cases which ends up in causing humiliation to the families of the war-heroes, was strongly disapproved by this Court in CWP No.19503 of 2008 (Capt. Janmej Singh versus State of Punjab and others) decided on 6.10.2010. CWP No.19511 of 2008 [5] For the reasons afore-stated and following Capt.Jarnail Singh's case (supra), the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to appointment of the petitioner's son, namely, Gajjan Singh on Class-III post within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. May 16, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE