BEANT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Beant Kaur is the widow or Pritam Singh deceased. She has made a prayer through this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to appoint the petitioner against some suitable post on compassionate ground after regularising the services of her husband Shri Pritam Singh, who died in harness:

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that her husband was appointed on 4th November, 1986 in the office of Executive Engineer, Public Health (PWS) Division, Sangrur. On 7th May, 1993 respondent No. 1 had issued a policy of regularisation of ad hoc/work -charge/casual daily employee and as per the policy, the daily wage employees who had completed 10 years of service were entitled to be regularised. On 21st August, 1997, respondent No. 3 recommended the case of the husband of the petitioner for his regularisation to respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P -2. The husband of the petitioner unfortunately expired on 30th November, 1997 but the formal order of regularisation of his services could not be issued due to the administrative and procedural delay. It is alleged by the petitioner that she is Matriculate. She made an application on 2nd January, 1998 before the respondent No. 4 seeking appointment on compassionate ground as her husband had died during the course of the service. On 23rd February, 1998, respondent No. 5 wrote a letter to respondent No. 4 for seeking appointment of the petitioner as she was unable to maintain herself and to maintain other family members as they were fully dependent upon the income of the deceased. On 11th March, 1998, some information was sought by respondent No. 4 which were duly complied with. On 15th March, 1998, as per the directions of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the petitioner moved an application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground which was duly recommended by the Junior Engineer concerned and on 23rd February, 1998, the petitioners case was again recommended by respondent No. 5 to respondent No. 4. In spite of the correspondence made by the petitioner,' no relief has been granted to her. Resultantly , she served a legal notice on 3rd December, 1998. With this background the petitioner has made the above prayer.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. The submissions of the respondents can be reflected through paragraph 3 of the written statement which runs as follows : -