REENA RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to adjust petitioner's husband against any post suitable for him or keep on supernumerary post until a suitable post becomes available or he attains the age of superannuation. She further prays that son of the petitioner may be granted appointment on compassionate ground.

(2.) The husband of the petitioner on 5/11/1989 joined the respondent-department as Constable. He discharged his duties diligently and in 1993, he suffered from Schizophrenia which is a mental illness. A Board of Doctors declared him medically unfit and respondent-department retired him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent as per Sec. 47 of the 1995 Act was duty bound to keep the employee on supernumerary post until the availability of alternative post. The respondent was further duty bound to continue her husband in job and pay salary as he had become disabled during service. The son of the petitioner in terms of policy of Government of Punjab was entitled to compassionate appointment and respondent has wrongly rejected his candidature on the ground of not securing minimum marks. The son of the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment without securing minimum marks. The petitioner's son was not claiming appointment as a normal candidate whereas his claim was under the policy and for the purpose of compassionate appointment, he was not supposed to clear the exam. The petitioner could not be denied benefit on account of efflux of time.