GURPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision dated 13th June, 2005 of the High Powered Committee whereby his case for appointment to a Class III post under "Appointment of Honours & Gratitude to the Dependent of War Heroes" policy was rejected. The petitioner has further sought a writ to declare any instruction, rule and regulation prohibiting employment of 'married son' as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) Brief factual matrix of the case as stated in the petition is that Baljit Singh real brother of the petitioner was enrolled in Army on 25th January, 2001. However, he died while on active duty in 'Operation Parakaram' on 20th November, 2002. As Baljit Singh was a bachelor at the time of his death, his parents were given liberalized family pension by the Army authorities apart from ex-gratia and other benefits, being next legal heirs/next of kin. However, State of Punjab also announced certain benefits for the kin of those persons who were killed in war or war like operations, vide its policies dated 19th August, 1999 and 20th August, 2002. Pursuant to the said policy, State of Punjab gave Rs. 2.00 lacs as ex-gratia to the parents of the deceased. Under the same policy, the petitioner, who is brother of the deceased soldier, applied for a government job claiming to be dependent of the deceased. The case of the petitioner was referred by the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Ludhiana after completion of formalities to the concerned authorities. According to the petitioner, the authorities did not take any decision on the issue for quite a long time. Ultimately the petitioner served a demand notice dated 12th September, 2008 on the respondents for appointment to a Class-III post. In his reply to the said demand notice, Director, Sainik Welfare Punjab informed vide letter dated 7th October, 2008 (Annexure P-13) that his case for appointment had been rejected by the High Powered Committee on 13.6.2005 on the ground that he was 'married' and thus not a dependent of the deceased. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this court.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant record annexed with the petition.