M.L. Singhal, J. - (1.) HARJEET Singh filed suit for declaration against the State of Punjab whereby he challenged his removal from the post of Pump Operator and prayed that he be treated as in service of the defendant (State of Punjab) as pump operator with all the benefits attached to that post as if he was never removed from that post.
(2.) IT was alleged in the plaint that he was workings pump operator in the Public Health Division, Muktsar under the State of Punjab, His father died on 10.1.91 while in harness. According to the instructions issued by the State of Punjab from time to time, if an employee dies in harness, one member of his family has to be given appointment keeping in view his qualifications so as to retrieve the family of the hardship which it became afflicted with on account of the untimely demise of the bread winner of the family. It was alleged in the plaint that his father Jarnail Singh was working as Clerk in the Public Health Department of the State of Punjab. Plaintiff was given appointment as class IV on daily wages though he was required to be given appointment on regular basis as his father was working on regular basis. Plaintiff was working since 1.2.91 on the basis of the Punjab Govt. Policy. Defendant State of Punjab terminated his services which was in violation of the policy drawn up by the State of Punjab aimed at rehabilitating the family whose sole bread winner died in harness. Defendant -State of Punjab contested the suit of the plaintiff using that his father was a daily wager, as such he was not entitled to be appointed in place of his father.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : - 1. Whether the removal of the plaintiff is illegal ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the appointment on priority basis ? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is premature ? OPD 4. Relief. 6. Vide order dated 3.12.93, Subordinate Judge Second Class, Muktsar decreed the plaintiffs suit in view of his finding that his father died on 10.1.91, while in harness and he was given appointment in place of his father with a view to rehabilitate the family and to retrieve it of hardship which it became afflicted with on account of the sudden demise of the sole bread winner of the family. Plaintiff could not be removed from service. His removal from service was in violation of the policy of the govt. which was aimed at rehabilitating the family from whom its livelihood was snatched by the untimely demise of its sole bread winner. It was found that the plaintiffs father was working in the Public Health Department since 1.11.85. He worked till his death. It was found that his father had to be viewed as good as in the regular employment of the govt. It was found that casual absence for a day or so in any month did not detract from his being viewed as one in the regular employment of the govt. 7. State of Punjab went in appeal. Vide order dated 14.8.96, Additional District Judge, Faridkot dismissed the appeal. Still not satisfied, State of Punjab has come up in further appeal to this court. 8. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and the learned counsel for the respondent -plaintiff and have gone through the record. 9. It was submitted by the learned State counsel that the respondent's father was working on temporary/ad hoc basis, he was a daily wager and as such no compassionate appointment could be given to his child. In support of this submission he drew my attention to State of Haryana and Anr. v. Rani Devi & Anr,,, 1996(4) SCT 63 (SC) :, 1996(3) RSJ 691, where it was laid down that "if the scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground is extended to all sorts of casual, ad -hoc employees including those who are working as Apprentices, then such scheme cannot be justified on constitutional grounds". 10. It is true that no compassionate appointment can be given to the child of a person who was working on temporary, ad hoc or daily wage basis. However, plaintiffs father Jarnail Singh could not be viewed as on temporary, ad hoc or daily wage basis when we look to the statement of DW1 Shri S.K. Grover, SDO, Public Health, Muktsar. He stated that the plaintiffs father worked on daily wage on muster roll from 1.11.85 to 10.1.91 as pump operator. He died on 10.1.91. He was thus pump operator in the Public Health Department till his death. In other words, he died in harness. Shri S.K. Grover DW1 stated that the plaintiffs father used to remain absent for a period of 2 days occasionally. If the plaintiffs father was absent for a day or so in a month, in my opinion, that did not detract from his father being viewed as in the regular employment of the govt. There are instructions of the govt. which lay down that if a person has worked there for a period of 5 years continuously as a daily wager, he is entitled to be regularised after the expiry of that period. Notional breaks of a day or so have to be ignored and he is to be viewed as in continuous employment of the govt. I, thus, do not find any weight in the submission of the learned State counsel that the plaintiffs father was daily wager and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to be given compassionate appointment in his place for retrieving the hardship which the family became afflicted with on account of his sudden demise when I hold that the plaintiffs father was as good as in the regular employment of the State of Punjab. Only formal order was to be passed regularising him. Non -passing of the formal order regularising him did not affect his status. He had to be viewed as in the regular employment of the State of Punjab. , 11. In my opinion, the view taken by the learned courts below is correct and does not call for any interference, So, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Respondent -plaintiff shall be taken back in service but he shall not be paid any back wages. He shall not be entitled to count the period during which he remained out of job in the wake of his removal from service after 28.2.91. In other words, this period of more than 10 years shall not count towards his service career. He shall be taken back in service on the wages which are being paid to a pump operator appointed on regular basis these days. 12. Appeal dismissed.;