BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for issuance of a mandamus directing respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. Writ of certiorari has also been prayed for, for quashing of the reply dated 18.04.2012 (Annexure P-3) communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran-respondent No. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was killed by the terrorists on 17.05.1992, FIR No. 41 dated 18.05.1992 under Section 302 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered at Police Station Tarn Taran. Petitioner is the dependent son of the deceased who was a Government employee. Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground as per the Punjab Government Policy/Instructions dated 21.11.2002 which provided for appointment on compassionate ground to the dependents of the deceased. Petitioner falls within the definition of Dependent Family Member as specified in Note I. The claim of the petitioner was submitted by him along with necessary documents and the required recommendations but despite that the claim of the petitioner was not accepted and he was not offered appointment on compassionate ground whereas similarly placed employees have been duly given appointment. He, on this basis, contends that the petitioner, faced with this situation, served a legal notice dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure P-2) upon respondents No. 1 and 2, to which reply has been received by the Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran-respondent No. 2 dated 18.04.2012 (Annexure P-3), wherein the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the mother of the petitioner, who was wife of the deceased, was working as a Clerk in the department of Irrigation and, therefore, the petitioner was not a destitute. Further, his mother was earning a good amount and, therefore, the case of the petitioner would not be covered by the instructions. Counsel further contends that the instructions itself provide that where one of the parents is working, the Government can take into consideration the income and give relief to the claimants. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner being not in consonance with the instructions cannot sustain.

(3.) IN view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.