DHARAMPAL Vs. GENERAL MANAGER ADMN DELHI ELECTRIC UNDERTAKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the petitioner was working with the respondents who died on 17.12.1987 while in employment. After his death petitioners mother submitted an application dated 25.02.1988 to the respondents requesting that petitioner be given employment by respondents on compassionate grounds. Some information was obtained from the petitioner by the respondents regarding details of agricultural land and income of elder brother. Thereafter, Screening Committee of the respondents considered the request but rejected the same on 10.02.1993. Petitioner, thereafter, made requests to higher authorities but as these representations do not yield any results, present petition was filed in December, 1994 seeking quashing of impugned order dated 2.12.1993 by which petitioner was informed that his request was rejected and mandamus is sought directing the respondents to give him job. Respondents have the scheme of appointment on compassionate basis and as per the respondents, request of the petitioner was considered as per the provisions of said policy. At the relevant time only those dependants of the deceased employed could be granted job whose family income (including pension) does not exceed RS.1100.00 PM In the impugned order dated 2.12.1993, it was stated that since the family income, including family pension, was more than Rs. 1100.00 PM, his case was rejected.

(2.) It is an admitted case between the parties that as per record, an amount of Rs.955.00 was being paid as family pension, Rs.125.00 PM was the income of the brother of the petitioner, Rs.42 PM from agricultural land and thus the family was earning about Rs.1122.00 PM. The income of the brother of the petitioner was accepted at Rs. 125.00 PM as per the details given by the petitioner himself although it is stated in the counter-affidavit that it is unbelievable that petitioner's brother was earning only Rs. 125.00 PM.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid income of the family. However, it was sought to be argued that the income of his brother should not be included while computing the total income of the family as it was not regular income. This cannot be believed when the figures to this effect were supplied by the petitioner himself.