C.W.P No. 7488 of 2006 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 7488 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : July 13, 2010 Neelam Rani @ Narinder Kaur, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Punjab and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.2.2006 (Annexure P-10) whereby, pursuant to the directions of this Court in CWP No.19145 of 2005, a speaking order was passed declining compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The ground taken was that the petitioner was over age by a period of 11 months on the date of the order. Even in the impugned order, it was not disputed that otherwise the petitioner was qualified for being considered for compassionate appointment under the policy of the State of C.W.P No. 7488 of 2006 (O&M) ::2:: Punjab since her husband had admittedly died in harness. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had applied on 13.7.2004 i.e immediately after the death of her husband and at that time she was within the age limit. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the date of birth originally supplied by the petitioner was 7.1.1969 and, therefore, even on 13.7.2004, she was over age by six months. It is not disputed that the petitioner thereafter filed CWP No.19145 of 2005 wherein she had pleaded that the date of birth originally mentioned by her was wrong and actually she was born on 27.7.1969. She further pleaded that she had asserted this on the basis of the birth certificate. The explanation she had given was that when she was admitted to a school, her father inadvertently got her date of birth wrongly recorded as 7.1.1969. This Court directed respondent No.2 to consider the above fact and pass a fresh order. It is pursuant to this direction that the impugned order has been passed. However, in the impugned order, the date of birth 27.7.1969 has not been accepted but no reason has been given why the birth certificate has been ignored. Incidently a copy of that birth entry has been annexed as Annexure P-1 and the same does corroborate the assertion made by the petitioner. It is also clear from the record of this case that before admitting this writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court had summoned the original register by order dated 20.2.2007 and, after perusing the same, this writ petition was admitted. This fact also strengthens the case set up by the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents has further argued that it has been held by various Courts that the policy of compassionate appointment has C.W.P No. 7488 of 2006 (O&M) ::3:: been designed to give immediate relief to the family of a bread winner who dies in harness. In the present case now a period of six years has elapsed since the death of the husband of the petitioner and, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. To this counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present is a case where the petitioner had applied immediately without losing any time (three weeks of the death of her husband), and since then she has been running from pillar to post and had to approach this Court two times. He further states that the petitioner has no source of income and has two children to bring up. In my opinion, the present is a case where the lapse of time would not defeat the right of the petitioner. The petitioner has indeed been making strenous efforts to get the benefit announced by the respondents. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as Constable. I am also persuaded to give this direction because counsel for the respondents has very fairly mentioned that under the present policy, the age of appointment to government service has been extended to 45 years for women. Let the needful be done within a period of four months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 13, 2010. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 7488 of 2006 (O&M) ::4::