TINKU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present letters patent appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 12/1/2021 passed in CWP Nos.19095 of 2009 'Tinku Vs. State of Haryana and others'. The appellant is aggrieved against the dismissal of the writ petition. The relief as such claimed in the writ petition was for appointment on compassionate grounds, since appellant's case had been rejected vide order dtd. 28/4/2009 (Annexure P-5).

(2.) The reasoning which weighed with the learned Single Judge was that compassionate appointments is an exception to the general rule and the provision was made to help the bereaving family immediately to tide over immediate crisis, who has lost its bread earner. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in 'Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana', (1994) 4 SCC 138, to come to the conclusion that it was a concession and could not be claimed as a matter of right especially after a passage of time. It was, accordingly, noticed that though the case of the writ petitioner as such had been entered in the concerned register and as and when he attained the age of majority, his case was to be considered. It was, accordingly, held that there was no such alteration of position for claiming the benefit of estoppel as pleaded by the petitioner who on gaining majority was seeking the said claim. The learned Single Judge noticed that 23 years had elapsed from the time when the petitioner's father died and the writ petitioner was more than 30 years old and, therefore, the writ of mandamus was not likely to be issued. Accordingly, while noticing the judgment of the Apex Court passed in 'Canara Bank and another Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar', (2015) 7 SCC 412, it was held that the Apex Court was considering interpretation of the scheme framed by the Bank, which was not existing in the facts and circumstances of the present case and neither any scheme had been placed on the file and, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the application for appointment should have been considered by keeping in mind the date of death, which was 22/11/1997 and the policy which was in vogue on 8/5/1995 (Annexure P-8), which had been modified on 31/8/1995. It was, accordingly, contended that once the name of the appellant as such had been entered in the minors register as per direction of the DGP on 15/4/1998 (Annexure P-1), the respondents were estopped as such. It had been held out at that time that the son would be given appointment on attaining the age of majority as the wife had not opted for the said benefit. It is, thus, the case of the counsel for the appellant as such that similarly situated persons were appointed and, therefore, Article 14 of the Constitution of India was violated in the case of the appellant. It is, accordingly, contended that there was no delay on the part of the writ petitioner and when he became major he had filed representations dtd. 23/1/2009 (Annexure P-3) and 30/10/2009 (Annexure P-4), which have been wrongly rejected vide order dtd. 28/4/2009 (Annexure P-5).