CWP No. 13986 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13986 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: August 09, 2010 Sukhwinder Kaur .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.K. Kapila, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-6 dated 15.09.2009. 2. Perusal of order Annexure P-6 indicates that Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar has conveyed to District Army Welfare Officer, Amritsar the fact that case of the petitioner for job has been filed in view of the fact that two brothers of the petitioner had died. Both the brothers were unmarried at the time of death. They would constitute only one family. One person out of the family has already been given a job and, therefore, there is no violation of any term of policy/instructions adopted by the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the brothers had died at a gap of more than one year. The petitioner at that point in time CWP No. 13986 of 2010 2 was about 16 years of age. 4. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 5. It is not in dispute that two brothers of the petitioner were unmarried at the time of their death in action. In such circumstances, as also admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, they would constitute one family. In terms of instructions issued by the respondents, a member of the family of the petitioner has already been given a job in lieu of honour and gratitude to the dependents of Martyr. Learned counsel has not been able to show as to how policy framed by the respondents has been violated or terms thereof have been ignored. 6. One member of the family having been given job, substantial justice has already been done and no further indulgence in writ jurisdiction is called for. 7. Dismissed. 09.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?