Amandeep Padda vs State of Punjab

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner impugns the order (Annexure P-5) dated 16.5.2008 by which the benefit of appointment on compassionate basis, initially conferred upon her in the year 2007 was withdrawn and the appointment cancelled resulting in dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner''s father ASI Sukhpal Singh died in harness on 29.1.1987 leaving behind his widow and two daughters; one of them is the petitioner who asked for appointment on compassionate grounds. Initially the application was submitted in the year 2001 which was negated solely on the ground that petitioner did not have the requisite qualification of being a graduate. The petitioner completed Post Graduation and acquired a diploma as well and resurfaced for appointment which was also rejected but the Director General of Police differed with the treatment meted out to the petitioner upon which whole matter was appraised afresh and the petitioner was granted employment as a Constable. She was awarded a constable number and she became a full fledged member of the force. By virtue of the impugned order the benefit of appointment has been annulled resulting in her dismissal from service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a three fold submission while impugning the said order i) successor authority of an equivalent rank could not have reviewed an order passed by his predecessor ii) there would be no provision in the Punjab Police Rules envisaging a review of an order passed earlier in accordance with law iii) once the petitioner became a full fledged member of the force she would be governed by the Punjab Police Rules and her dismissal could only be made in accordance with provisions of Rule 16.2.

Apart from this it has been contended that once the respondents have granted an appointment on compassionate basis they were not within their rights to annul the same as they would be estopped by their own conduct in doing so. Respondents plead that there were no instructions governing such an appointment. It is totally contrary to the provisions of law as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and other related cases wherein it was held that appointment on compassionate cases can only be granted to tide over extreme financial crisis by the family but in the instant case death having taken place in 1987 and the petitioner having asked for appointment in the year 2005 after acquiring the qualification could not by any stretch of imagination plead financial stringency to be a reason for appointment. Apart from this it has been stated that the mother of the petitioner was an earning hand.

I have considered the matter and I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

If the show cause notice (Annexure P-5) and the subsequent order (Annexure P-7) are read in conjunction then it indicates that the respondents were conscious of the instructions prevailing at that point of time as also at the time of death of the father of the petitioner. All this is more evident as the case of the petitioner was shelved to enable her to acquire the requisite qualification. Despite this acute awareness of the provisions of law respondents went ahead with the appointment of the petitioner and assimilated her in the force. Having done so they could not have turned around to terminate her services by pleading a sudden realization of the provisions of law. The petitioner would be right in contending that once the competent authority had appointed her on compassionate grounds the successor authority would have no cause to review the appointment and the only course available with the respondents would have been to fall back on the Punjab Police Rules in the eventuality of seeking dismissal of the petitioner from the services, who had already acquired the status of permanent member of the force and no other course was available to the respondents. Having chosen a totally arbitrary manner to dispense with the services of the petitioner the impugned order cannot be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents contends that impugned order was passed in the year 2008 but the instant petition has been filed belatedly. This has sufficiently been explained by the petitioner as she had erroneously taken a recourse to filing of a suit impugning the said order which was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to file a present petition. Accordingly instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is also held entitled to all consequential benefits.