LPA No. 1567 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1567 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 19.11.2010 State of Haryana and others -----Appellants Versus Sandeep Singh ---Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 17.09.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the instructions dated 24.10.1978/ 21.05.1979 (Annexure P-3) are fully applicable. According to these instructions, two dependents of service personnel killed/ disabled beyond 50% are to be given appointment in civil post. The learned Single Judge apart from relying on these instructions, has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 729 of 1996 decided on 16.04.1998. 2. It is not disputed that the writ petitioner-respondent Sandeep Singh is dependent of Ex-serviceman who was killed in LPA No. 1567 of 2010 (O&M) -2- action. The only argument, however, raised is that the instructions dated 24.10.1978/ 21.05.1979 (Annexure P-3) would not be applicable to the police department as the post of Constable cannot be regarded as a Civil Post. The interpretation sought to be put on the expression 'Civil Post' used in the instructions is prima facie erroneous and is out-rightly rejected. The post of Constable or other post in police department would be covered by the expression 'Civil Post'. 3. The other argument raised is that the writ petitioner- respondent did not mention in his application that his father lost life in action and the only other mention was that he is dependent of ex- serviceman. Once, it has been found as a fact that the father of the writ petitioner-respondent has lost life in action, it will not make any material difference because there is no one else from this category whose right might have been affected. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. 4. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE November 19, 2010 Atul