SUKHWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a widow. Her husband Gurcharan Singh, retired from BSF and her minor son Karanvir Singh along with three other persons were killed by the CRPF on account of their mistaken identity. FIR No.16 dated 16.02.1991, under Sections 302/148/149 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran, which was closed as un -traced on 23.12.1991. The petitioner received ex -gratia grant from the State of Punjab and is also receiving the monthly aid for her survival to the tune of Rs.5,000/ - for the loss of life of her husband and the only minor son. It is alleged that the Civil Administration as well as the then Governor of Punjab assured the petitioner at the time of cremation of her husband and son that the Government would provide job to a member of her family but since the petitioner was left alone, therefore, she adopted Jaskaran Singh, her brother's son, at the time of his birth on 15.07.1991 and thereafter by way of an adoption deed on 29.01.1993. The adopted son has now passed B.Com and the petitioner made an application dated 15.01.2013 to the Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran for seeking employment for her adopted son on compassionate ground, which was rejected on 07.02.2013. The petitioner made another application to the Deputy Chief Minister, Punjab at the time of Sangat Darshan, which was forwarded to the Special Chief Secretary (R) and further to the Secretary, Revenue and Rehabilitation and Disaster Management, Punjab, who informed the Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran that the employment to the son of the petitioner on compassionate ground cannot be given as Jaskaran Singh is not the adopted son of Gurcharan Singh. The said order dated

(2.) 09.2014 is under challenge in this petition inter alia on the ground that it violates the policy dated 05.02.1996 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on the subject of grant of employment in the State Services on compassionate grounds. 2 Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Clause 5 of the aforesaid policy, for the purpose of offering appointments on Class -III and IV posts on compassionate grounds, the following categories of persons were to be considered: -

(3.) It is further submitted that while making appointment against Class -III and Class -IV posts on compassionate ground out of the categories of the persons mentioned here -in -above, the following conditions/ clarifications were to be meticulously followed: -