PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dtd. 7/7/2017 (Annexure P-15), passed by respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Clerk on compassionate ground has been rejected. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Clerk on compassionate ground, in view of the instructions dtd. 5/2/1996 (Annexure P-12) and 21/11/2002 (Annexure P-13), issued by the Punjab Government and also to grant him all consequential benefits for which he is legally entitled.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the instant petition, are that the father of the petitioner namely, Dalbara Singh, who was appointed as a Social Studies Master in the Punjab Education Department during the year 1973-74, unfortunately died on 2/1/1984 leaving behind his pregnant wife and one daughter. The petitioner was born on 17/8/1984 i.e. after the death of his father. After passing of 10+2 examination, the petitioner had applied for appointment in the State service on compassionate grounds, vide application dtd. 5/7/2006 (Annexure P-1) on the prescribed proforma. The case of the petitioner was duly forwarded by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Kadiana Kalan, District Ludhiana, where the father of the petitioner was posted at the time of his death, to respondent No.3- District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Ludhiana, vide letter dtd. 6/7/2006 (Annexure P-2). However, the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected by respondent No.3 on the ground that the petitioner had completed 18 years of age on 17/8/2002, whereas he has submitted application for compassionate appointment on 5/7/2006, after a delay of 04 years. Thereafter, the petitioner had again submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds stating therein that he belongs to illiterate and poor family and no one guided the petitioner to submit the application immediately on attaining the age of 18 years and further requested in application that a sympathetic view should be taken. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was forwarded by respondent No.3 to the Director of Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, vide letter dtd. 29/11/2007 (Annexure P-3), however, no action was taken on the same by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed various representations to various authorities claiming appointment on compassionate grounds, but to no avail. Consequently, the petitioner served a justice demand notice dtd. 5/9/2016 (Annexure P-10) upon the respondents, through his counsel, to finalize his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. When no action was taken by the respondents on the said legal notice, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.1954 of 2017 (Paramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others), seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Clerk on compassionate grounds. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, vide order dtd. 3/2/2017 (Annexure P-14), with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice of the petitioner by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Pursuant to the order dtd. 3/2/2017, passed by this Court, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dtd. 7/7/2017, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay. Hence the instant petition.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner completed his 10+2 examination in the year 2001 and thereafter, secured admission in Panjab University for pursuing graduation. Due to this reason, he could not apply for appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 2002 as he was pursuing his graduation at that time. He further submits that when the petitioner could not complete his graduation, he immediately moved an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 2006. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected by respondent No.2, vide impugned order dtd. 7/7/2017, on the ground of delay. He further submits that the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is squarely covered by the instructions dtd. 5/2/1996 (Annexure P-12) and 21/11/2002 (Annexure P-13), issued by Punjab Government as there is no other earning member in the petitioner's family.