MANPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition impugning the orders dated 14.03.2013 at Annexure P-10 as also order dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure P-15), whereby his claim for appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected. Brief facts that would require notice are that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Senior Accountant in the office of Accountant General, Punjab and died in harness on 24.03.2004. At the time of death, deceased Sumitter Singh left behind legal heirs i.e. his widow and three sons including the present petitioner. It is further pleaded that Amarpreet Singh, i.e. the brother of the present petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 2005. At that point of time, the petitioner had furnished an affidavit deposing that he would have no objection to his brother namely Amarpreet Singh being granted appointment on compassionate basis. It so transpires that the claim of the brother of the petitioner was rejected in the year 2005 itself. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application seeking the benefit of appointment on compassionate basis on account of death of his father. Such claim was rejected vide impugned order dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure P-10). Upon the petitioner having secured some information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act as regards certain other appointments having been granted by the State on compassionate basis after the death of the father of the petitioner, he submitted yet another application as also legal notice, which has also been rejected in the light of the order dated 08.08.2013 at Annexure P-15.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the action of the respondent-authorities in not having accepted the claim of the petitioner is arbitrary and highly inequitable. It is contended that the petitioner is physically handicapped. Counsel further adverts to Annexure P-11, whereby information has been supplied under the Right to Information Act, whereby a number of dependents have been granted appointments on compassionate basis and wherein, the date of death of the concerned employee has been shown to be later in point of time to the date of death of the father of the petitioner. Counsel would argue that if such appointments have been given in relaxation of the policy regulating compassionate appointments, the same benefit should also enure to the petitioner.

(3.) Having heard counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner regarding compassionate appointment cannot be accepted.