High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 02 P&H CK 0107

Urmila vs State Of Punjab And Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 12 February 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 10822 Of 2019 (O&M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 251 words

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J

1.

Widow of late Sh. Raj Kumar has filed the instant writ petition seeking compassionate appointment on a suitable post on the basis that her husband,

who was serving on a Class-IV post under the Municipal Council, Dhaliwal died in harness on the intervening night of 24/25.11.2017.

2.

Pleadings on record only indicate that husband of the petitioner late Sh. Raj Kumar had been engaged on a Class-IV post on D.C rates. There is no

document much less an averment made in the petition which would reflect that the services of late Sh. Raj Kumar had been regularized.

3.

On a previous date of hearing counsel had sought time to place on record the order whereby services of Raj Kumar (since deceased) had been

regularized so as to press the claim raised in the petition.

4.

During the course of resumed hearing today, counsel representing the petitioner has fairly conceded that services of Raj Kumar had never been

regularized and he was working on D.C rates till the time of his death.

5.

There is no policy/instructions relied upon by the petitioner under which a claim for compassionate appointment would be admissible even qua an

employee, who has died while working on D.C rates. Rather counsel admits that such claim of compassionate appointment would be confined only

with regard to a regular employee, who may have died in service.

6.

In view of the above, the prayer made in the instant petition cannot be accepted.

7.

Dismissed.