BALWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction for quashing of impugned order dtd. 7/6/2016 (Annexure P-9) whereby claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the writ petition are that petitioner's father namely Baldev Singh was working as JBT Teacher in Distt. Sangrur. He died on 25/9/1993 while in service. The mother of the petitioner submitted an application dtd. 18/10/1993 for keeping one post reserved in terms of the Government policy for providing compassionate appointment to the dependent family member of the deceased employee. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 24/7/2003. Subsequently, some differences arose between the petitioner and her husband and they started residing separately. Thereafter, the marriage between them was dissolved with mutual consent by filing petition under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act vide judgment and decree dtd. 14/11/2013. The claim of appointment on compassionate ground was submitted in view of amended instructions dtd. 26/8/2011, whereby legally divorced daughters of deceased Government employee were also included in the category of dependent family members for the purpose of compassionate appointment. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dtd. 20/2/2016 (Annexure P-8), which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected only on the ground that there does not exist any provision for providing employment to the widow daughter, whereas the petitioner is legally divorced daughter of the deceased employee and not a widow daughter. The claim has also been rejected on the ground that death occurred in the year 1993 and the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was eligible to apply in view of the amendment in the policy framed by the State Government and, thereafter, cause of action had arisen. Learned counsel submits that order of rejection is not only unlawful and illegal but contrary to the policy and the claim has been rejected without any application of mind. The petitioner has no source of income after getting divorce and she is wholly dependent upon her mother and is also residing with her, but all these factors have not been taken into consideration.