REVA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the order dated 14.08.2013 (Annexure P10) whereby respondent No. 5 -Jeevan Lal has been given appointment on a Class IV post, on account of being an oustee of the Ranjit Sagar Dam under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy of the State.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that her claim has been deliberately and arbitrarily over -looked as she is the widow of Shanku Ram son of Duni Chand -respondent No. 6 whereas respondent No. 5 is the grandson of the said respondent.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner's husband died on 07.09.2006 and thereafter, an FIR had been lodged on 25.04.2008 under Sec. 406, 109 IPC and criminal proceedings were pending since 16.12.2008 in the Court of JMIC, Basholi. The land of the family of her husband and other persons having been acquired, one member of the family of her father -in -law was eligible for appointment and therefore, she, along with other similarly placed oustees had approached this Court in CWP -15688 -2011 and a direction was issued on 25.08.2011 (Annexure P5) to consider the case of the petitioners, by passing a speaking order within 2 months. The petitioner had, accordingly, applied on 03.05.2012 (Annexure P6) and her father -in -law had given her an affidavit on 04.05.2012 (Annexure P7) that he wanted his daughter -in -law to take the benefit of employment as the son had expired and other family members had no objection. Similarly, Ramesh Chander, the brother -in -law had also given an affidavit on 13.12.2012 (Annexure P8). It is, accordingly, argued that on account of the understanding reached, the witnesses in the criminal trial had turned hostile and the accused were granted the benefit of acquittal on 30.07.2013 (Annexure R6/5). It is, therefore, argued that the private -respondents have acted in illegal and clever manner, thereafter and supported appointment in favour of respondent No. 5, by giving another affidavit dated 19.03.2013 (Annexure R6/4) wherein the earlier affidavit given in favour of the petitioner was withdrawn. Similarly, representation had been made on 01.06.2013 (Annexure R6/5) that the petitioner was not looking after respondent No. 6 and therefore, the appointment should not be given to her but given to respondent No. 5.