Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUMIT ABROL versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sumit Abrol v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-18592-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 11035 (21 November 2006)

CWP NO. 18592 of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO. 18592 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION:23.11.2006

Sumit Abrol ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ....Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND

PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for

Mr.Sushil Saini, Advocate

for the petitioner.

J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 7.12.2005 passed by the Director Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, declining the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

The sequence of events narrated in the pleadings of the instant writ petition reveal that the petitioner's father, who was engaged as a Science Master in the Education Department of the State Government, died in harness on 6.7.1998 i.e. more than 8 years before the filing of the instant writ petition. It is also not disputed, as has been stated in the impugned order, that the petitioner's mother is employed as a teacher. Additionally, it is acknowledged, that the petitioner's mother is in receipt of family pension, on account of the service rendered by the CWP NO. 18592 of 2006 2

petitioner's father.

For the reasons expressed in the foregoing paragraph; the Director Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, arrived at the conclusion, that the petitioner was not in a state of financial penury so as to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, and further, that hardship, if any, caused on account of the death of the petitioner's father, arose in 1998 and the claim of the petitioner was barred for seeking compassionate appointment, in terms of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana, 1994(3) SCC 138.

We find no infirmity in the consideration of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, as has been dealt with in the impugned order dated 7.12.2005.

Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

( S.D. Anand )

November 23, 2006. Judge

vig


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.