SUNITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dtd. 18/12/2020 (Annexure P-3), whereby neither service benefits on account of death of her husband have not been granted to hernor her request for the compassionate appointment is being considered.

(2.) Husband of the petitioner was working with the respondent-department on contract basis. He died in harness on 2/6/2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on judgment of this Court rendered in Mamtesh vs State of Haryana and others 2019(4) SCT116, in support of his arguments, wherein it was held that even in the case of a temporary employee working for the State, in the event of death in harness, benefit of compassionate appointment to one of the family members can be extended. Therefore, he argues that in the case of petitioner same benefit ought to be accorded. Her husband was admittedly a contractual employee but having served for nine years and was entitled for regularization of his services, qua which his case was pending at the time when he suddenly died in the road accident.

(3.) Heard. 3. Ordinarily, this Court would not have interfered in the matter of compassionate appointments in the absence of any policy qua the contractual employee, which concededly the husband of the petitioner was at the time of his death. However, given the mitigating circumstances as more particularly stated in the petition and also the fact that deceased husband of the petitioner had served the respondents for nine years, leaving behind young 33 years widow with four minor children to feed, it is expected of the respondents to have a compassionate outlook and try to accommodate the petitioner, subject of course to the requirement of services, on any suitable post in any class, on a similar arrangement of contract like her husband.