MAMAN SINGH Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of the petitioner was working as a lineman with the Haryana State Electricity Board (for short, 'the Board'.) While he was still in service, he died on August 13, 1982. Petitioner then was a minor and attained majority only on November 2, 1988. In January 1988, mother of the petitioner applied to the Board for providing some suitable appointment to her son (petitioner) on compassionate grounds because of the death of his father during service. The application for providing service to the petitioner was made in terms of the instructions issued by the State of Haryana and adopted by the Board for providing compassionate appointments to the dependents of those who died in service. The Executive Engineer as per his letter dated July 18, 1990 addressed a communication to Smt. Kamla Devi, mother of the petitioner requiring her to send the application on a new form which had since been prescribed for purposes of seeking employment under the ex-gratia scheme. It is stated that such an application was filed but the same was rejected on the ground that it was not found feasible for acceptance as per the instructions of the Board. It is this order of rejection which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) It is not disputed that the Board as per the instructions contained in memorandum dated 26.9.1985 had adopted the ex-gratia scheme for providing employment to one member of the family of the deceased as a goodwill gesture. It had also been decided that the time limit within which the dependent of the deceased employee was to be provided employment was one year and that a request for employment should be entertained only in cases in which widows submitted applications for employment immediately after the death of their husbands. These instructions were modified in October, 1986 and the relevant decision of the Board reads as under :

(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties and taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, I am of the opinion that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of the ex-gratia policy adopted and followed by the Board is not justified. It is common case of the parties that the petitioner was a minor when his father expired while in service on August 13, 1982 and that he became a major only on November 2, 1988. It requires no argument to say that even if the mother of the petitioner had applied for employment within the period prescribed in the instructions, the petitioner could not have been given employment as he was a minor. The whole exercise would have, indeed, been in futility. The application on behalf of the petitioner was made in January 1988 and again on the prescribed proforma on the asking of the Executive Engineer of the Board. If it is to be rejected simply on the ground that the same was not filed within the period prescribed in the instructions, the whole purpose of granting compassionate employment to the dependent of a deceased Government Servant would in many cases be frustrated. A Government Servant may die while in service leaving behind minor children but they can get employment only after they have attained majority and have also acquired some educational qualifications. In such cases, the period prescribed in the instructions cannot be said to be that mandatory so as to deprive the dependents of the deceased of their right to get compassionate employment under the instructions. A similar matter came up for consideration before J. L. Gupta, J., in Santosh Kumar v. Haryana State Electricity Board,1993 1 SCT 158 (P&H), wherein the learned Judge quashed the order refusing to grant compassionate appointment on the ground that the application was made beyond the period prescribed by the instructions. I am in full agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge.