SOHNA DEVI Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOHNA Devi has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of mandamus or any other direction to the respondents to give employment to the petitioner's son under the Ex. gratia Scheme.

(2.) BRIEFLY slated the facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are as follows:ram Pat husband of the petitioner joined service as work-charge. T. mate in regular scale on February 1, 1968 and he was promoted as regular Asstt. Lineman in April, 1973. Ram Pat Assistant Lineman died on 16,3. 1975 due to electric shock while working on duty. At the time of death of Ram Pat, her two sons, namely, Ramesh Kumar and Pardeep Kumar were minors. Executive Engineer and Sub Divisional Officer under whom the deceased was working, assured the petitioner that small children would be given appointment as Assistant Lineman when they attain majority. Petitioner was paid only Rs. 8000/- by way of compensation in the end of year 1975 and no other financial help by way of family pension etc. was given to the petitioner and as such she had to sustain her family comprising small children by doing labour work. Ramesh Kumar dis-continued his study after 6th class and Pardeep Kumar another son of the petitioner had to be admitted in Bal Niketan in Sector 2, Panchkula where he is still studying. On the assurance of the Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Yamuna Nagar and Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Division No. 2, Yamunanagar, petitioner submitted an application to the authorities stating that her son had attained majority and he may be given employment under the Ex. gratia scheme of the Board. Executive Engineer, Jagadhri wrote a letter to the petitioner on 24. 5. 1975 asking her to give detailed particulars of her family members at the earliest. The request of the petitioner to give employment to her son was declined by the Executive Engineer vide his order dated 23. 4. 1990 which is reproduced as under:

(3.) WRITTEN statement on behalf of the Board has been filed by the under Secretary of the Board. In the written statement, respondent has raised preliminary objection stating that the husband of the petitioner died on 16. 3. 1975; that the employment to the dependent of the deceased under Ex. gratia Scheme could be given only if the request for providing employment is made within one year from the date of the demise and that since the petitioner had made request in December, 1988, therefore, petitioner was not entitled to get employment for her son. It has been stated in para 3 of the written statement that in order to get employment on Ex. gratia basis, the dependent of the deceased has to apply to the Board within the stipulated time and the Board has fixed the time limit of one year under the Ex-gratia Scheme in view of the circular dated 26. 9. 1985 (Annexure R-l ). It has further been stated in para 3 that it was decided vide circular dated 1. 10. 1986 that in case of widow with minor children, the period of one year can be extended to three years provided the request for providing employment on Ex. gratia Scheme is made to the Board within a period of one year of the death of the employee. In para 4 of the written statement, it has been admitted that the husband of the petitioner was working as Assistant Lineman and he expired on 16. 3. 1975. It has further been stated that the officers of the answering respondents never gave assurance to the petitioner that her son would be provided employment on attaining majority. In para 11 of the written statement, it has been stated that the son of the petitioner is not entitled for employment under Ex. gratia Scheme as a matter of right; that ignorance of the instructions of the Board on this subject on account of illiteracy is of no help to the petitioner and that the orders dated 23. 4. 1990 and 7. 5. 1990 are legal.