AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge
Petitioner lost his father on 12.10.2001. Thereafter, he submitted an application for considering his candidature for appointment on compassionate basis. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has been appointed as Peon by the respondent-Department on 31.05.2006.
Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that in the case of respondent No. 3, who has lost his father on 18.12.2001, he has been appointed on compassionate basis as Clerk on regular basis.
Mr. Vishwa Bhushan has strenuously argued that his client was also required to be considered for appointment as a regular Clerk on compassionate basis and not as a Peon. He then argued that the father of his client has died on 12.10.2001 and the policy dated 18.1.1990 was applicable at that time and not Annexure R-2 dated 16.8.2005.
Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the case of respondent No. 3 was processed prior in time, he was offered appointment on compassionate ground as Clerk on regular basis as per old policy.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.
Petitioner lost his father on 12.10.2001. Petitioner applied immediately for considering his candidature for appointment on compassionate basis. It is borne out from the record produced by the respondent- State that the application was received in the office on 31.10.2001. In the case of respondent No. 3, he lost his father on 18.12.2001. He submitted an application to the Executive Engineer and thereafter the Superintending Engineer sent the matter to the Engineer-in-Chief. The Engineer-in-Chief sent the matter to the Government for according sanction on 20.6.2002. Thereafter, necessary sanction was accorded by the State Government and respondent No. 3 was appointed as Clerk on compassionate basis on 07.09.2002. Petitioner, as noticed above, submitted an application for considering his case for compassionate appointment immediately on 31.10.2001, vide application at page 85 of the record produced by the respondent. However, there was delay in processing his case and the case was received by the Engineer-in-Chief only on 15.07.2002. However, the fact of the matter is that the case of the petitioner has been received in the office of the Engineer-in-Chief before the appointment of respondent No. 3 on 07.09.2002. Case of the petitioner was required to be considered as per old policy and not amended policy dated 16.08.2005. Thus, it is a case of invidious discrimination as the equals have not been treated equally, as such, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is no tangible material on record to establish why the case of the petitioner has been delayed and the case of respondent No. 3 has been dealt with promptitude within a period of nine months. In case of petitioner though the application for compassionate appointment was submitted immediately after the death of his father, his case has been processed on 04.10.2005 and the sanction was accorded to employee the petitioner as Peon only on 31.05.2006. There is a delay of three years in processing the case of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No. 3, who was appointed as a Clerk on 07.09.2002.
Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondent-State is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Clerk on the analogy of respondent No. 3 within a period of eight weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs.