LAL SINGH Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking appointment to the post of Junior Clerk in the office of the respondent on compassionate grounds. Father of the petitioner, late Shri Mohan Singh was working with the respondent as Bill Messenger. However, as the fate would have it, the father of the petitioner died on 16.9.1994 while in service of the respondent.

(2.) It is stated in the petition that at the time of his death the father of the petitioner left behind his widow and three sons as his legal heirs. The two brothers of the petitioner, it is stated are already married and are maintaining separate kitchen and are living separately even prior to the death of the father of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has passed his High School and Intermediate examination he is eligible to be appointed to the post of Junior Clerk in the office of the respondent and therefore, in terms of the circulars issued by the Government of India the petitioner sought for appointment as Junior Clerk in the office of the respondent on compassionate ground.

(3.) The petitioner has relied upon the circular issued by the Government of India dated 25.11.1978 in support of his claim contending inter alia that the respondent is under legal obligation to offer employment to atlease one of the dependents of the deceased employee. In support of his submission that his two brothers are living separately, the petitioner has also annexed a ration card issued in the month of November, 1994. The respondent however, disputed the claim of the petitioner and stated that the respondent rejected the application of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground as his case is not covered within the ambit of the guidelines issued by the respondent for such appointments. It is stated that the two brothers of the petitioner are employed and inspite of request made by the respondent under its letter dated 16.8.196 to the petitioner to furnish information about his two brothers and their income no such information was furnished by the petitioner nor were their names disclosed. In respect of the ration card annexed to the petition the respondent stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had produced a new ration card prepared in the month of November, 1994 after the death of the father and therefore, the petitioner was asked to give a copy of the earlier ration card to ascertain whether the brothers were dependant on the father or not or whether they were living with the family or not.