Balwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus "directing the respondents to absorb him under their employment to a post be fitting to his qualifications in accordance with Punjab Government Circular letter No. 18/14/86-5 PP 1703/5904 dated 24.4.1986.....'' A few facts may be noticed.

Mohinder Singh, petitioner''s father was born on April 1, 1938. (This date has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions). He was working as a Patwari in District Sangrur. On Sept. 16, 1992 he submitted an application to the Department with a request for grant of pre-mature retirement on medical grounds. He was examined by a Board. On receipt of the report of Medical Board, the Department accepted his request. Vide order dated August 18, 1993 the Collector allowed the petitioner to pre-maturely retire. On Sept. 16, 1993 his son-the present petitioner submitted an application for appointment to a Class-Ill post to the Collector, District Sangrur. No order of appointment having been issued the petitioner got a notice served on the respondents through his counsel. Vide letter dated November 2, 1993 the Collector informed the petitioner that his application had been considered and filed. Hence, this writ petition.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The claim for appointment has been contested.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

The petitioner''s claim is based on the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab vide letter dated 24.4.1986. According to these instructions an appointment on priority basis can be given to persons killed as a result of terrorist actions, declared surplus on account of abolition of posts, disabled ex-servicemen and to "a member of the family of the deceased Government employee or of a Government employee who is retired from service on medical grounds". Various other categories have also been mentioned. It has been further provided that "while making appointment to State services out of the priority list mentioned above......", in case of persons who are retired on medical grounds "the concession should not be extended where the government servant has retired on or after attaining the age of 55 years".

On a perusal of the instructions it is clear that the basic purpose is to ameliorate the conditions of the family which has lost its bread winner. The instructions are meant to enable the deceased or retired Government servant''s family to tide over the economic crisis that has befallen it. It is also clear that the grant of preference to the categories mentioned in the instructions is basically an exception to the general Rule of equality as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Still further, it is a mere concession and not a right. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, it appears fair to conclude that under the law all the posts are to be filled up by allowing every eligible person to compete. However, in cases of certain categories of persons who have suffered on account of the death of the bread earner, the Government has provided for appointment on priority. Since this results in denial of equality to others, the instructions should be strictly construed and only in those cases where it is clearly proved that the family is going through a state of penury that the Court should interfere under Article 226.

In the present case the petitioner''s claim is based solely on the fact that his father Mohinder Singh had retired from service on medical grounds. It has been further stated that he had in fact expired on September 17, 1994. Even if that be so the instructions clearly provide that the concession of appointment on priority "should not be extended to cases where the Government servant has retired on or after attaining the age of 55 years". Mohinder Singh having been born on April 1, 1938 had attained the age of 55 years on March 31, 1993. He was retired from service on August 18,1 993. On that day he was more than 55 years of age. Consequently, in the case of his son the benefit/concession of appointment on priority basis is not admissible.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the benefit is denied on the ground that he was more than 55 years of age on the date of his retirement, the petitioner''s father having expired, the benefit should be given to him in view of the fact that he is a member of the family of the deceased Government employee. Even this contention cannot be accepted. It is true that appointment on priority basis can be given to "a member of the family of the deceased Government employee...". This only means that if a person dies while serving the Government, a member of his family can be given appointment on priority. However, on the date of his death Mohinder Singh was not a Government servant. He had already retired at his own request.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of this case there will be order as to costs.