AMANDEEP PADDA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the order (Annexure P-5) dated 16.5.2008 by which the benefit of appointment on compassionate basis, initially conferred upon her in the year 2007 was withdrawn and the appointment cancelled resulting in dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner's father ASI Sukhpal Singh died in harness on 29.1.1987 leaving behind his widow and two daughters; one of them is the petitioner who asked for appointment on compassionate grounds. Initially the application was submitted in the year 2001 which was negated solely on the ground that petitioner did not have the requisite qualification of being a graduate. The petitioner completed Post Graduation and acquired a diploma as well and resurfaced for appointment which was also rejected but the Director General of Police differed with the treatment meted out to the petitioner upon which whole matter was appraised afresh and the petitioner was granted employment as a Constable. She was awarded a constable number and she became a full fledged member of the force. By virtue of the impugned order the benefit of appointment has been annulled resulting in her dismissal from service.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a three fold submission while impugning the said order i) successor authority of an equivalent rank could not have reviewed an order passed by his predecessor ii) there would be no provision in the Punjab Police Rules envisaging a review of an order passed earlier in accordance with law iii) once the petitioner became a full fledged member of the force she would be governed by the Punjab Police Rules and her dismissal could only be made in accordance with provisions of Rule 16.2.

(3.) Apart from this it has been contended that once the respondents have granted an appointment on compassionate basis they were not within their rights to annul the same as they would be estopped by their own conduct in doing so. Respondents plead that there were no instructions governing such an appointment. It is totally contrary to the provisions of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, 1994 4 SCC 138 and other related cases wherein it was held that appointment on compassionate cases can only be granted to tide over extreme financial crisis by the family but in the instant case death having taken place in 1987 and the petitioner having asked for appointment in the year 2005 after acquiring the qualification could not by any stretch of imagination plead financial stringency to be a reason for appointment. Apart from this it has been stated that the mother of the petitioner was an earning hand.