DEVI RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, Devi Rani petitioner prays that respondents be directed to give employment to her son on compassionate grounds in accordance with the policy decision of the State Government and they be prohibited from making any appointment to Class III posts in any Department of the State of Punjab till cases of all the applicants entitled for employment on compassionate grounds are disposed of by them, and grant of any other appropriate relief in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) Facts, briefly, are that Dev Raj Gupta husband of the petitioner was working as an Assistant in Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, about twenty years before his death. He left behind his widow, three minor sons and one minor daughter. The elder son of the petitioner was aged about 17 years and seven months. The Government took a policy decision, Annexure P-1, providing that a member of the family of the deceased Government employee who dies in harness is entitled to recruitment in State service on priority basis and that if the post is not available in the same Department where his parent was serving at the time of death, Head of the Department shall circulate the particulars of such a person to other Departments to accommodate him. It is further stated that the policy for providing compassionate employment to the dependent members of the families of deceased Government employees has been made more liberal by the State Government vide policy decision, dated November 11, 1993, Annexure P-2. It has been reiterated therein that where it is not possible to accommodate the prospective beneficiary under the prority scheme in the Department/office in which deceased Government employee was serving at the time of death, the particulars of such person are to be circulated to all the Heads of Departments in the State, so that the prospective beneficiary may get appointment under the priority scheme against available vacant post of direct recruitment quota according to his entitlement and professional/education qualifications. The petitioner made an application, dated May 6, 1987 in the form of an affidavit, Annexure P-3, for providing employment in Class III service to Rajesh Kumar Gupta, elder son of the deceased. That claim remained pending and that his name was at Serial Number 46 in the priority list prepared by the Department. The assertion of the petitioner is that she made a number of representations for providing employment to her son to mitigate the hardship of the family. In December, 1991, she was informed that her eldest son might not be entitled to employment in Class III service as he had passed Matriculation Examination with Third Division. Then, the petitioner made an application for employment to her second son, Rakesh Gupta along with his certificates and affidavits of all other members of the family that they had no objection if the employment was granted to Rakesh Gupta. This application was forwarded by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 3. The name of Rakesh Kumar was substituted for employment on compassionate grounds in place of Rajesh Kumar. According to the petitioner, a period of more than eight years has expired but a member of her family is yet to be provided employment on compassionate grounds. It is also her case that a number of persons who applied subsequent to the application made by the petitioner have been granted employment on ad hoc and temporary basis and their services have been regularised but the claim of the petitioner for providing employment to her son on compassionate ground is not being considered, though the same is pending for the last many years.

(3.) On the other hand the case of the respondents is that the younger son of the petitioner applied for job vide his application, dated January 17, 1992 and his name was entered at Serial Number 161 of the register maintained by the Department for providing job to the legal heirs of the deceased Government employees. As per policy/instructions, the person is assigned seniority from the date of application. The Department has decided the cases of 101 applicants and in that way the name of younger son of the petitioner has shifted to Serial Number 60. The respondents have clarified that the name of younger son of the petitioner was inadvertently entered at Serial Number 45 which had been rectified vide letter No. SE3(2)/14982-15082, dated May 17, 1996, Annexure R-II, the transaliction of which is Annexure T-II. It was decided to offer him a Class IV job and he was asked to give his consent vide letter dated July 16, 1992 of the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-1. As no consent for Class IV job was received from the younger son of the petitioner, no action for considering his name for Class IV job could be taken by the Department. It is further pleaded that the respondents have already circulated the name of the son of the petitioner to all the Head of the Departments for giving him job on priority basis vide letter, dated March 20, 1996. Annexure R-IV, translation of which is Annexure T-III, and as per information received from the Transport Commissioner, Punjab, the younger son of the petitioner was called for Punjabi Type Test which is mandatory for entry into Government service vide Punjab Government circular letter No. 4/17/79-IPP/9977, dated August 24, 1983 addressed to all the Heads of Department, but he could not clear the Punjabi Type Test held on January 6, 1996. Therefore, he was not offered appointment by the Transport Commissioner, Punjab.