SITA DEVI Vs. SECRETARY, HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners husband late Shri Sher Singh was appointed as Lineman on work charge basis on 1st Dec., 1954, in the office of the Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board. Later on, on bifurcation of the Board, his services were transferred to the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Board). After having put in more than 18 years of service, the petitioners husband was made regular on the post of Lineman vide letter dated 12th Oct., 1972. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner expired on 11th June, 1974, while in service. The Board had issued instructions on 26th Nov., 1971 (Annexure P-18 to the writ petition) for grant of ad hoc ex-gratia and some other benefits to the, members of the deceased family and one of the facilities was that one or more members of the deceased may be considered for employment under the Boards service and the relevant rules may be relaxed if necessary and feasible. It maybe mentioned that the above mentioned instructions were supplemented by the Board vide instructions dated 14th Sept., 1983 (Annexure P-19 to the writ petition). It was mentioned that no employment will be given under the ex-gratia Scheme where any of the dependents of the deceased employee is employed.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner as put forth in the writ petition that after the death of her husband she made an application on 5th Aug., 1974 for giving employment to her under the instructions of the Board dated 26th Nov., 1971, referred to above. It is further mentioned that at that time when the application was made her three sons were minors. It is further averred that the above-mentioned application was followed by many reminders, of which copies have been attached as Annexures P-3 to P-9, and when nothing was heard, she made another representation on 13th June, 1985 that her one of the sons, namely Anil Dutt, may be given employment under the instructions dated 26th Nov., 1971. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the Board asked the petitioner to furnish some other particulars.

(3.) It may be further mentioned here that the respondent-Board had issued another set of instructions on the subject on 26th Sept., 1985, which, inter alia, provided that the time-limit within which the dependent of the deceased employee is to be provided employment would be one year. The Board informed the petitioner vide its communication dated 24th Aug., 1985 that the Board had decided that where any of the dependents of the deceased employee is employed, no further employment is to be given under the ex-gratia grant policy and since two sons of the petitioner were already employed, the employment of the third son is not feasible under the instructions.