BHAG SINGH Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks employment for his son. His agricultural land situated at Chitrrigham was acquired for construction of service reserviour. Petitioner did not receive any compensation. As per the petitioner, in terms of policy decision taken by the respondent-authorities one member of the family could seek employment with the State. Fact that the land was acquired and fact that the assurance was given that one of the members of the family would be given Government job is apparent from a letter addressed by the Executive Engineer P.H.E. Division Bijbehara to the Chief Engineer P.H.E. Division at Srinagar. This recommendation was again repeated vide another communication. Copy of this is annexure P/2. Petitioner having failed to secure a job from the respondent-authorities preferred this writ petition.

(2.) The question as to whether the scheme for giving appointment on compassionate grounds can be altered with retrospective effect was considered in case A. Ksheera Sagar v. A.P. Dairy Development Coop. Fed Ltd., 1997 3 SCT 515. The dependant of the deceased employees made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. There was alteration in the scheme. This was with retrospective effect. This provided for monetary package to the dependants of deceased in lieu of compassionate appointment. It was observed that the appointment would be governed by the Rules or Scheme as in existence on the date of making application and these could not be altered retrospectively.

(3.) Application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground was made as per the prevalent Government instructions in the month of May 1994. Later on in the month of May 1995, the instructions were issued afresh. These were to the effect that the married dependants of the deceased employee would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. It was observed that these instructions cannot be given retrospective effect. The fact that a post was in existence before instructions came was taken into consideration. It was accordingly held that the case of the petitioner should be dealt with as per the then existing instructions. This view was expressed by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1996 1 SCT 767.