ASHA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 6.5.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment of her son in lieu of death of her husband in harness.

(2.) A perusal of the paper book reveals that after the death of her husband, who was working as a Junior Engineer with the respondents and unfortunately expired on 20.12.1998, the petitioner-appellant requested the respondents that one seat be reserved for her son for compassionate appointment till he attains the age of majority because he was minor at that point of time and studying in 7th standard. His date of birth is stated to be 6.8.1987. On 6.1.2003, the respondents directed her to file an affidavit giving an option whether she was ready to receive the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- or employment under ex-gratia scheme. On 11.3.2003 she gave the option that sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- be given to her instead of employment because she was in dire need of money. On 5.8.2009, she filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction claiming that she is entitled to seek compassionate employment for her son as Clerk or in the alternative to a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- under ex-gratia scheme of the State of Haryana along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum (P-3). On 30.11.2009, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Karnal, dismissed the suit as withdrawn on the basis of a statement made by the counsel for the petitioner-appellant (P-4). On 26.4.2010, the petitioner-appellant filed CWP No. 8139 of 2010 before this Court seeking compassionate appointment of her son.

(3.) The learned Single Judge has found that the claim of the petitioner- appellant is devoid of merit in view of the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., 2009 6 SCC 481 and Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharastra, 2008 11 SCC 384, wherein their Lordships of Hoble the Supreme Court have held that compassionate appointment after a period of 12 years is impermissible.