SURESH KUMAR Vs. DELHI VIDHYUT BOARD AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY , this matter was heard on 26.05.2009. The counsel for the petitioner argued the case. Since, none appeared for the respondents, liberty was given to respondents to file written submission and the matter kept reserved for judgment. However, the respondents did not came forward. While dictating the judgment, some clarifications were required and accordingly the matter was listed for directions on 10.07.2009. Appeared none on that day, the matter was posted on 17.07.2009. Only counsel for the respondents appeared which could not clarify, as was required. The matter was again listed on 24.07.2009 and on that day learned Counsel for the petitioner sought time to reply the query put forth by this Court. Ultimately, both counsel appeared on 31.07.2009 and addressed the court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that in pursuance of order dated 10.07.2002, he did not file the 'Amended Memo of Parties '. Even on 31.07.2009, he has shown his inability to file the same because new companies have come up and he is unable to fix, who shall be the concerned respondent. Though, this petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone, however, this Court has decided to proceed further with the matter on merits. Accordingly, the matter was heard and after clarification it was reserved for judgment on 31.07.2009 itself.

(2.) THE deceased Sh. Ram Sahay was employed in Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking on 24.12.1969 (thereafter it was renamed as Delhi Vidut Board) as Assistant Line Man and he rendered services in the department for 29 years & 4 months. The deceased Ram Sahay was having only son namely Babu Lal. The said son of the deceased died on 10.08.1987 at Delhi, leaving behind his wife and a son, who is the petitioner in the present writ petition. The deceased employee Ram Sahay adopted the petitioner as his son by virtue of adoption deed dated 30.09.1991. Since then, the petitioner was discharging all the duties as a son of the deceased Ram Sahay. Admittedly, deceased Ram Sahay died on 25.04.1999 and the wife of the deceased had already expired. During his employment he got added on 21.11.1995 the name of the petitioner as his son in the medical card which is annexed as page 26 of this writ petition. Since then the petitioner was getting all the medical facilities from the department as a son of the deceased Ram Sahay. After the demise of the deceased Ram Sahay i.e., on 25.04.1999, the petitioner applied for the compassionate appointment in the department. The respondent had rejected the claim of the petitioner as under:

(3.) THAT compassionate employment as per the current rules can only be claimed by 'Dependent Family Member' means: