States High court

Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Compassionate Appointment to Man Whose Father Died During Operation Blue Star

FacebookFacebookTwitterTwitterEmailEmailWhatsAppWhatsAppLinkedInLinkedInShareShare

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected a man’s plea for compassionate employment in light of his father’s demise during the 1984 Operation Bluestar.

A bench of  Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma noted that compassionate appointments are provided to the dependents of the deceased government servant with the sole purpose of assisting the family in overcoming the immediate financial difficulties resulting from the government servant’s death.

The Court expressed the view that the petitioner-son did not face any such immediate financial difficulty more than twenty years after his father’s death in Operation Blue Star.

“The petitioner had attained majority in the year 1998, and a further 12 years had passed when his case was rejected. As of today, more than another 12-13 years have passed by. In these circumstances, without examining the issue of whether the appointment was available to the families who died during Operation Blue Star, this Court finds that, by the efflux of time after almost more than 20 years, compassionate appointment cannot be offered to the petitioner,” the Court concluded.

The Court considered a plea by Bal Amrit Singh, who sought a compassionate appointment through a petition filed in 2013 due to his father’s death during Operation Blue Star at the Golden Temple, Amritsar, in 1984.

The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that the petitioner was a minor at the time of his father’s demise.

Based on a government-issued circular granting such appointments to dependent family members of individuals killed due to terrorism or riots, the petitioner sought compassionate employment.

“Although it (compassionate appointment) is not a regular mode of appointment, the same is given to the dependent of the deceased Government servant only to come out from the immediate financial difficulties which cannot be said to be existing as on today in relation to the petitioner,” the Court explained.

Nunnem Gangte

Recent Posts

AIMPLB Member Khalid Rasheed Extends Greetings Of Eid-ul-Fitr, Appeals All To Follow Advisory Issued

Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali, a prominent member of the All India Muslim Personal Law…

14 hours ago

Embezzlement Case: French Far-Right Leader Marine Le Pen Found Guilty, Barred From Seeking Public Office

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen dramatically exited a courtroom after a French court found…

14 hours ago

Delhi HC Seeks AIIMS Centre To Reply To Plea For Spot Admission Round For INI-CET

The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the Central government and the All…

15 hours ago

Delhi HC Rules Against Mandatory Service Charges In Restaurants, Lawyers Call It A Win For Consumers

In a significant ruling favouring the consumers, the Delhi High Court recently ruled that the…

16 hours ago

Taliban Leader Declares No Need For Western Laws, Says “Democracy Is Dead In Afghanistan”

Taliban leader Hibatullah Akhundzada has declared that Afghanistan has no need for Western laws, emphasizing…

17 hours ago

Israel’s Netanyahu Picks New Security Chief, Disregarding Legal Challenge

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday has officially appointed former Navy Commander Eli Sharvit…

18 hours ago