RAJESH CHANDER SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before me is a practising Advocate at Bhatinda. His father was a teacher in a school in the Punjab Education Department. Unfortunately, the petitioner, while he was a minor, lost his father on 3rd July, 1976. The petitioner is the only child of his parents. After graduating in law, he started his practice at Bhatinda, in May, 1987.

(2.) To alleviate sufferings of the unfortunate families whose bread earner happe ned to die while in service, the Punjab Government issued instructions in the year 1973 to give Government employment on priority basis to the dependent of the deceased depending upon his qualifications. The instructions were clarified/modified and another set of instructions was issued on 24th April, 1986, a copy of which has been attached as Anoexure P-5 with this petition. In these instructions, priority for employment has been given to various categories of persons for Government employment. The first four categories are as under :-

(3.) The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is Annexure R-l, which are the instructions dated 18th July, 1991 (which were clarified on 24th September, 1991), according to which, after reconsideration of the matter regarding employment on priority basis of the dependents of the deceased Government employees who died in harness, it had been decided that in case of all future appointments under the above category, the dependent is to be appointed to a Class III post at least one step below the post which the deceased employee was holding at the time of his death. It is further mentioned in these instructions that it would be proper to offer to the dependent of the deceased who was a class III employees, an appointment to the lowest rank of the Class III post and in this view of the matter generally the first post in Class III would be that of a Clerk which should be offered to such a dependent. However, it was clarified later oa that in no case the offer of appointment would be higher or equal in the basic pay and rank of the deceased and the dependent can be offered one rank below than the post of the deceased only in deserving cases. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the instructions dated 18th July, 1991 were brought into play and since the petitioner's father was only a J.B.T. teacher so according to the respondents, he should not be offered a post higher than the Clerk in Class III. Further, it has been submitted by the learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, that according to the instructions of 1986, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-5, the offer of appointment has first to be made to a dependent in the same department, in which the father of the dependent was working and died. Since, according to the learned Assistant Advocate General, the father of the petitioner was working in the Education Department, it is that department which could offer hiro a post and only if that department fails to offer any appointment to the petitioner, then the case of the petitioner could be considered for appointment in any other department.