Bhag Singh vs State of Jammu and Kashmir

T.S. Doabia, J.

Petitioner seeks employment for his son. His agricultural land situated at Chitrrigham was acquired for construction of service reserviour. Petitioner

did not receive any compensation. As per the petitioner, in terms of policy decision taken by the respondentauthorities one member of the family

could seek employment with the State. Fact that the land was acquired and fact that the assurance was given that one of the members of the family

would be given Government job is apparent from a letter addressed by the Executive Engineer P.H.E. Division Bijbehara to the Chief Engineer

P.H.E. Division at Srinagar. This recommendation was again repeated vide another communication. Copy of this is annexure P/2. Petitioner having

failed to secure a job from the respondentauthorities preferred this writ petition.

On 7th of September 1997 interim direction was given by this court. This was to the effect that the petitioner's claim for payment of compensation

be considered. Even though this petition is pending in this court for more than five years, even though several opportunities were granted to the

State to file counter affidavit, no step was taken by the State in this regard. All that has been said at the time of argument is that policy under which

the petitioner could seek appointment is no longer in force as SRO in question was rescinded.

The question as to whether the scheme for giving appointment on compassionate grounds can be altered with retrospective effect was considered

in case reported as A. Ksheera Sagar v. A.P. Dairy Development Coop. Fed Ltd., 1997(3) SCT 515. The dependant of the deceased employees

made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. There was alteration in the scheme. This was with retrospective effect. This

provided for monetary package to the dependants of deceased in lieu of compassionate appointment. It was observed that the appointment would

be governed by the Rules or Scheme as in existence on the date of making application and these could not be altered retrospectively.

In Gurdip Singh v. The Haryana State Electricity Board, 1997(4) SCT 833 (P&H) , the concerned employee suffered permanent disability. The

instructions contemplated giving of compassionate appointment. Instructions were modified. The case of the petitioner was pending before the

change occurred in the policy. It was observed that the case for giving appointment should be considered under the instructions which were

applicable at the relevant time. Since the case had already been recommended under the earlier instructions it was held that subsequent instructions

could not be made applicable.

Application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground was made as per the prevalent Government instructions in the month of May 1994.

Later on in the month of May 1995, the instructions were issued afresh. These were to the effect that the married dependants of the deceased

employee would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. It was observed that these instructions cannot be given retrospective effect. The

fact that a post was in existence before instructions came was taken into consideration. It was accordingly held that the case of the petitioner

should be dealt with as per the then existing instructions. This view was expressed by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the

case of Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1996(1) SCT 767.

Petitioner in this case was submitting to the respondentauthorities that his son be appointed as Chowkidar. His case was recommended. No action

has been taken. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the claim of the petitioner's son be considered in terms of

the policy decision then it existence. The mere fact that the policy decision stood withdrawn would not affect the right of the petitioner. Claim of the

petitioner for payment of compensation be also considered.