CHANDRO DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Chandro Devi alongwith her son Ghan Shyam Dass who happen to be widow and son of Shri Dharam Singh have come to this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India so as to seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment to petitioner No. 2 on any Class III post on compassionate ground in pursuance of policy decision of the Government to accommodate one or two dependents of the deceased who died while he was in service of the Government.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case reveal that deceased-husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 Shri Dharam Singh was working as a J. B. T. Teacher in the Education Department, Government of Haryana. He Joined the service of the respondent State on 27. 4. 1954 and while in service, he died on 27. 7. 1984. It is pleaded that the Government of Haryana has laid down a policy decision dated 22. 12. 1970 so as to give ex-gratia benefits to the dependents of those Government employees who died in service. One such benefit is to employ one or two dependents of the deceased Government employee even if the Service Rules have to be relaxed. At the time of death of Dharam Singh petitioner No. 2 was minor and, therefore, petitioner No. 1 moved an application on 11. 10. 1985 for appointment of her elder son namely Krishan Kumar on the post of Draftsman on compassionate ground. The elder son of petitioner No. 1 was First Class Matriculate with diploma in Draftsmanship. The application was sent through proper channel and the same was recommended by the Headmistress, Government Girls High School, Julana District Jind to the Sub Divisional Education Officer on 11. 10. 1985. It is pleaded that the application was further recommended by the Sub Divisional Education Officer Jind to the District Education Officer Jind on 18. 11. 1985. Despite the recommendations, as referred to above, the prayer of petitioner No. 1 was not accepted and her elder son was not appointed on any post. Meanwhile it is stated that petitioner No. 2 also passed 10 + 1 examination and became major and eligible for appointment to the Government service. Petitioner No. 1, therefore, made another application for appointment of her son to any Class III post. It is stated that petitioner No. 2 was born on 18. 4. 1974 and attained minimum age required for Government service on 18. 4. 1991. This application was made three years prior to the date when petitioner No. 2 attained majority. When the application aforesaid was not attended to, a detailed representation was made and when that also brought no tangible result, the present petition was filed in this Court.

(3.) THE cause of petitioner has been opposed and in the written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioner No. 1 applied for employment for her elder son in view of death of his father. During the pendency of the case, the son of petitioner No. 1 got employment in Indian Air Force. Petitioner No. 1 therefore, moved a second application for reservation of service to her another son i. e. petitioner No. 2 and the same has been rejected by the State Government in view of policy letter No. 16/21/88-6 CS. S-II dated 19. 5. 1989 whereby it has been enjoined that the application for employment has to be made within three years from the date of death of employee. It is pleaded that the writ petition is barred by time. It is further stated that the writ is not maintainable in the present form as elder son of Petitioner No. 1 has already been employed in Indian Air Force. On merits, the case of the respondents is that policy decision dated 22. 12. 1970 Annexure P1 stood superseded by another policy decision dated 19. 5. 1989. As per policy decision dated 19. 5. 1989, Annexure Rule 1, the petitioner was to apply within three years of the death of the employee. Her first application was moved in October, 1985 which, it is stated, was taken back by her because her son for whom the application was moved got employment in the Indian Air Force. Thereafter second application was moved which was sent by respondent No. 2 for consideration. Inasmuch as petitioner No. 1 had applied after three years from the date of death of her husband, her case was rejected. It has also been pleaded in para No. 9 of the written statement that the family of the deceased was not suffering any financial hardship.