Govt earns High Court rap; to pay Rs 20,000 costs

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 23

More than a decade after a son applied for compassionate appointment to a class IV post following his father’s death, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped Haryana for sleeping over the matter.

Directing the respondent concerned to issue the necessary order of appointment to the petitioner on a notional basis, Justice PB Bajanthri added: “Having regard to conduct of respondents, they are liable to pay costs of Rs 20,000. The cost shall be paid to the petitioner”.

The order came on a petition filed by Nirmal Singh against Haryana and other respondents. His father, Hazara Singh, was working as a Chowkidar in the office of the respondents before his death.

During the course of arguments, counsel for the state submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to a compassionate appointment as he has not produced a succession certificate.

There was a delay in consideration of his claim. Since his father died in January, 2006, and the petitioner’s claim remained pending consideration up to September 2015, he was not entitled to employment on compassionate grounds due to lapse of time

Justice Bajanthri observed the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment the year his father died. For want of the succession certificate, the respondent concerned did not pass any order, accepting or rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.

Taking up the matter, the Bench directed the respondent concerned to consider the petitioner’s grievance with reference to the legal notice. But, the respondents again did not pass any order. Consequently, the petitioner was compelled to file a petition alleging contempt of court.

During pendency of the contempt petition, an executive engineer passed an order in September, 2015, rejecting the petitioner’s claim. “From the conduct of the respondents, it is evident that petitioner’s claim has not been considered timely in respect of demanding a succession certificate and other requirements.

“Even after submission of the succession certificate, the respondents have slept over the matter. The petitioner was compelled to file a civil writ petition as well as a contempt petition and the present writ petition. In view of the facts and circumstances, the instant writ petition stands allowed. The order dated September 1, 2015, is set aside,” Justice Bajanthri concluded.