High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/17352/2018dismissed

Deepak Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2018-09-12Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

CWP No.17352 of 2018 (O & M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

CWP No.17352 of 2018 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 12, 2018 Deepak Singh ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:

Mr. Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL The petitioner was enrolled in BSF on 31.10.2001. While being on duty on 21.10.2005 in Sopore (J & K), he suffered injuries during a militant attack and was thus discharged on medical grounds. It is stated that the petitioner is 95 per cent disabled. He was discharged on 21.10.2005. The petitioner was offered the post of Peon by Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur in view of the instructions dated 15.01.2015 vide letter dated 02.11.2016. The petitioner accepted the offer and joined as Peon in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur on the same day. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide letter dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure P-2), the Department of Defence Services Welfare had appointed three widows and a disabled Army personnel as Senior Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner. Thus the petitioner is claiming similar treatment as the action is stated to be discriminated. AMIT KAUNDAL 2018.09.14 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.17352 of 2018 (O & M) -2After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, no ground for interference is made out.

It is apparent in the letter dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure P-2) that the appointments are stated to be made in the year 2007 in view of the instructions dated 19.08.1999, 24.09.1999 and 27.06.2000 relating to the dependants of the families of War Heroes/disabled Army personnel, whereas the petitioner being member of Paramilitary force was granted appointment under different set of instructions dated 15.01.2015. Even the instructions referred to have not been placed on record. That apart, the petitioner having accepted the offer now cannot rely upon the appointments made in the year 2007. Thus, no claim for similar treatment can be entertained.

Dismissed.

(JASWANT SINGH) September 12, 2018 JUDGE A.Kaundal Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No AMIT KAUNDAL 2018.09.14 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document