KAMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of order dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure-P-5), vide which the claim of the petitioner qua appointment on compassionate basis, has been rejected on the ground that Instructions dated 1.8.2006 do not provide for employment to the dependents of a deceased employee. Challenge is also to the order dated 27.7.2007 (Annexure-P-6), wherein case for grant of monthly financial assistance was being processed of the petitioner, instead of granting her appointment on compassionate grounds, as per Instructions/Rules of 2003, which is applicable to the claim of the petitioner.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was working as a Math Master with the Department of Education, Haryana. The husband of the petitioner expired on 9.11.2005. On his death, petitioner submitted an application for appointment to the post of JBT or Hindi or Sanskrit teacher or Clerk under the ex-gratia Scheme well within the time as per the 'The Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased of Government Employees Rules, 2003' (in short '2003 Rules'). The claim of the petitioner, as per reply filed by the respondents, has only been considered for the post of Clerk and the same has been rejected on the ground that no post, for appointment on compassionate grounds within the 5% reserve quota, was in existence on which the petitioner could be employed. This he contends would leave the petitioner entitled to consideration for appointment to the post of JBT or Hindi or Sanskrit teacher in the light of Rule 7 of the 2003 Rules, according to which appointment is to be offered to the dependent of a deceased Government employee one step lower than the post of deceased Government employee. The post of JBT, Hindi and Sanskrit teacher is one step lower than that of Math Master. He further contends that as per the Haryana School Cadre (Group 'C') Service Rules 1998, Rule 9 thereof provides the method of recruitment, qua post of Math master, according to which under Clause 'd', 20% posts are to be filled up by promotion from amongst JBT and Classical and Vernacular (C&V) teachers. Since the petitioner is claiming appointment to the post of JBT or Hindi or Sanskrit teacher (which fall in C&V cadre), the petitioner is entitled to be considered against the said post. He accordingly contends that the claim of the petitioner is required to be considered under 2003 Rules for appointment to the post of JBT or Hindi or Sanskrit teacher.

(3.) His further contention is that 2003 Rules would be applicable to the claim of the petitioner as those Rules were in force at the time when the death of the petitioner's husband occurred. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna Kumari Vs. State of Haryana and others 2012(2) S.C.T. 736 : (CWP No. 4303 of 2009 decided on 20.4.2012) . He accordingly prays that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and a direction needs to be issued to respondents to consider petitioner's case on compassionate grounds under 2003 Rules against the post of JBT or Hindi or Sanskrit teacher.