SATPAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.03.2012 (Annexure P7), whereby the appointment of Smt. Gurmit Kaur, respondent No.4, on compassionate grounds, has been approved, on account of the fact that she was a Government employee, nominated by the deceased in the service record. Therefore, holding her liable to be considered for compassionate appointment, after the death of the Government employee, as per instructions dated 19.09.2002 (Annexure P5) and thus, the petitioner's objection has been filed. Respondent No.4 is the second wife of the deceased employee, Darshan Singh, who was working in the office of respondent No.2, whereas the petitioner is the son from the first wife and therefore, the tussle for compassionate appointment inter se the family members.

(2.) From a perusal of the record, it would transpire that the deceased employee, Darshan Singh, who died on 03.07.2010 (Annexure P1), was married to one Surinder Kaur, mother of the petitioner on 14.12.1991 and the petitioner was born from the said wedlock on 09.12.1994. Due to the dispute inter se the couple, got divorced by mutual consent on 26.03.2002 (Annexure P2), on a payment of Rs.40,000/ - as total maintenance to the wife. The petitioner, being the minor son, was to remain with Darshan Singh, the deceased employee, which would be clear from the statement given by Surinder Kaur, in the divorce proceedings, which has been noticed in the order, Annexure P2. Thereafter, Darshan Singh performed second marriage on 04.08.2002 and it is the case of respondent No.4 that Manpreet Kaur was born from the said wedlock. The deceased employee also nominated the said respondent as a member of his family, in which, even Manpreet Kaur's name figured as the daughter, vide nomination dated 05.11.2008. A perusal of the document (Annexure R4/6) would go on to show that the daughter was 6 years old, at that point of time. Similarly, the ration card dated 29.04.2009 shows that she was 5 years old on that date. Thereafter, on

(3.) 07.2010, the employee, Darshan Singh expired, leading to the filing of the Civil Suit dated 23.11.2010, for the payment of his retiral dues, which was filed by the petitioner and his grandmother and respondent No.4 along with Manpreet Kaur were arrayed as defendants No.4 & 5. 3.A compromise was arrived at inter se the parties that half of the dues would be paid by the Department to the plaintiffs and half would be paid to Gurmeet Kaur and Manpreet Kaur. The family pension would be sanctioned as per rule, proportionately. Accordingly, the suit was disposed of on 13.01.2011 (Annexure R2), as per the compromise. Respondent No.4, in the meantime, had also applied for compassionate appointment and had also filed CWP -8946 -2011, in which, she had also claimed the retiral dues. The petitioner, along with his grandmother, were arrayed as respondents No.4 & 5 in the said petition. However, in view of the compromise which was arrived at in the Civil Suit, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by filing an application for withdrawal, by getting the case preponed by respondent No.4. The order dated 19.12.2011 (Annexure R5) reads as under: