SATGUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure P-7) vide which the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur has cancelled the dependent certificate issued to the petitioner vide office letter dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure P-5). Upon notice issued to the respondents, the stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur is that he had proceeded to cancel the earlier dependent certificate issued to the petitioner on the basis of the opinion given by the District Attorney, Sangrur wherein it was stated that a married son cannot be issued the dependent certificate.

(2.) This, the counsel for the petitioner states, is misreading of the instructions dated 19.9.2002 (Annexure P-10) issued by the Government of Punjab, according to which for compassionate appointment, eligibility and suitability of a dependent family member of a deceased Government employee, criteria has been laid down. He contends that a married son has been included as an eligible and suitable candidate for appointment on compassionate grounds. In this regard, reference has been made to para 3 clause (iv) of the said instructions.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents could not rebut the contention of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the eligibility of a married son to be declared as a dependent for appointment on compassionate ground. However, he asserts that the requirement specified in clause (iv) of para 3 has to be proved by the petitioner before the Competent Authority for issuance of the dependent certificate. Another ground which has been asserted by the counsel for the respondents is that as per the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, 2002 dated 21.11.2002 as amended on 5.2.2003 (Annexure P-9), dependent family member has been defined in note I where only son is mentioned and, therefore, the married son would be presumed to be deleted under clause (c) of the said note, unmarried daughter and unmarried brother as also unmarried sister have been mentioned. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the dependent certificate being a married son of the deceased.