Satgur Singh vs State of Punjab

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure P-7) vide which the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur has cancelled the dependent certificate issued to the petitioner vide office letter dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure P-5). Upon notice issued to the respondents, the stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur is that he had proceeded to cancel the earlier dependent certificate issued to the petitioner on the basis of the opinion given by the District Attorney, Sangrur wherein it was stated that a married son cannot be issued the dependent certificate.

This, the counsel for the petitioner states, is misreading of the instructions dated 19.9.2002 (Annexure P-10) issued by the Government of Punjab, according to which for compassionate appointment, eligibility and suitability of a dependent family member of a deceased Government employee, criteria has been laid down. He contends that a married son has been included as an eligible and suitable candidate for appointment on compassionate grounds. In this regard, reference has been made to para 3 clause (iv) of the said instructions.

Counsel for the respondents could not rebut the contention of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the eligibility of a married son to be declared as a dependent for appointment on compassionate ground. However, he asserts that the requirement specified in clause (iv) of para 3 has to be proved by the petitioner before the Competent Authority for issuance of the dependent certificate. Another ground which has been asserted by the counsel for the respondents is that as per the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, 2002 dated 21.11.2002 as amended on 5.2.2003 (Annexure P-9), dependent family member has been defined in note I where only son is mentioned and, therefore, the married son would be presumed to be deleted under clause (c) of the said note, unmarried daughter and unmarried brother as also unmarried sister have been mentioned. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the dependent certificate being a married son of the deceased.

On considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the impugned order cannot sustain as the same is based upon an opinion given by the District Attorney dated 6.7.2011 (Annexure R-5) which is contrary to the Punjab Government instructions dated 19.9.2002 (Annexure P-10). The ground that the married son of a deceased Government employee would not be included within Note I of dependent family members also cannot be accepted as in clause (b) thereof the word used is son (including adopted son). In clause (c) and (d), it has been specifically mentioned as unmarried daughter, unmarried brother and unmarried sister. Intention of the instructions are clear wherever a married daughter, married brother and married sister were sought to be excluded from the definition of the dependent family member, it has been so mentioned but qua the son, there is no such clarifications mentioned, meaning thereby that the married son would also be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground provided he fulfils the requirement of being a dependent of deceased government employee. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure P-7) is hereby quashed. Writ petition is allowed; petitioner is granted liberty to assert his claim of being a dependent of the deceased permanent employee, namely, Labh Singh as per the instructions dated 19.9.2002. This claim, if any, be asserted by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The Deputy Commissioner shall thereafter proceed to decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to his being a dependent of Labh Singh, deceased government employee within a period of four weeks of such submission of the claim by the petitioner. Decision so taken be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith.