LAWS(P&H)-2006-1-230

SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Decided On January 06, 2006
SURJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition, in public interest, is to seek a writ of certiorari for quashing appointment of respondent No. 3 as Inspector in Punjab Police vide appointment letter dated 22.01.2003 on compassionate grounds though the said respondent is son of a Cabinet Minister in the present State Government.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that highly influential people, like politicians and senior officers, use their undue influence to grab the benefit for their own wards though meant for the dependents of terrorist affected families. As a result, the genuine sufferers of terrorist activities, who had lost their bread winners, are deprived of the concessions provided by the government. It is alleged that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed after lapse of time and when the crisis is over. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. Therefore, respondent No. 3, who is son of a Cabinet Minister in the present State Government, could not have been appointed on compassionate ground allegedly in terms of clause 5(1)(iv) of policy dated 05.02.1996. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 was appointed even though the said policy was superseded by another policy dated 21.11.2002 which does not contemplate appointment on such ground.

(3.) On the other hand, the State defended the appointment of respondent No. 3 on the ground that the case of the said respondent is covered under the policy dated 05.02.1996 as the petitioner applied for job on 13.09.2002 and his case was considered in October, 2002. It is pointed out that father of the petitioner has helped the administration in fighting terrorism and was on the hit list of the terrorists. He had a narrow escape in the year 1992 when a bomb was thrown at him. The fact that father of respondent No. 3 was receiving threats is sought to be supported from the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner dated 23.10.2002.