UMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's father Hans Raj Nagpal died in harness in a train accident on 20.10.1985 serving the Haryana Government as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Gurgaon. On the death of the father, the petitioner applied for appointment to Government service on the basis of executive instructions issued by the Government of Haryana issued on 22.12.1970 which deal with compassionate appointment. These instructions were further modified on 13.7.1971 to say that it was not the intention of the Government while issuing instructions dated 22.12.1970 that dependents of a deceased employee would be provided as a matter of course and the merits of each individual case were required to be carefully examined. The hardship principle was introduced and the concession was confined only to Class III and Class IV posts. The petitioner held double M.A degrees and prayed that he may be granted appointment ex gratia as Excise and Taxation Officer. His case was examined and on 31.12.1986 Government offered him appointment as Taxation Inspector in Class III service. He did not join the post offered and continued to make representations for appointment to the higher post in Class II. Stone-walled on his request the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was allowed on 21.2.1992 and a direction was issued to the State of Haryana to appoint him as Excise and Taxation Officer.

(2.) Aggrieved by the decision of learned Single Judge, the State Government carried an intra court appeal before the Division Bench in LPA No.734 of 1992. The stand of the State was that Government instructions provided for appointment only in Class III and Class IV posts and therefore, the direction was contrary to the instructions. The status of the deceased was irrelevant consideration. No deviation from Policy was permissible.

(3.) The petitioner had urged at that time before the Court that he was more highly qualified than Vinod Dahiya and Smt. Bimla Chohan who had been appointed to Class II posts in the Excise and Taxation Department itself. A case of discrimination was set up. The stand of the State was that in making the appointment to Class II and higher posts under the ex gratia Policy, the Haryana Public Service Commission is consulted and the matter is placed before the Council of Ministers for consideration. It is only thereafter that exceptions are created in individual cases keeping in view the totality of circumstances, which are created rarely. The Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.734 of 1992 observed in the order dated 17.12.1992 as under: