VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner on the post of Taxation Inspector on compassionate grounds. We may notice the relevant facts as pleaded by the parties. The petitioner claims that his father who was working as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer in the State of Haryana died on 10.9.2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). At that time, the deceased had crossed the age of 55 years. The petitioner is the eldest son. He possesses qualification of B.A. The mother of the petitioner sent an application on 16.2.2002 to respondent No. 3-Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Panchkula seeking appointment for the petitioner on compassionate grounds. By letter dated 27.11.2002, the petitioner was informed by the respondents that since the post of Excise Inspector was not available, the petitioner could be offered the post of Taxation Inspector. The offer of appointment sent by the respondents to the mother of the petitioner is attached as Annexure P-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner accepted the aforesaid offer by sending a communication dated 2.12.2002. Thereafter the petitioner has not been issued the order of appointment. After waiting for some time, he again submitted a representation on 9.6.2003. Ultimately, petitioner has received a cryptic letter dated 30.6.2003, in which he has been informed that since his father was over 55 years of age at the time of his death, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the matter has been closed. Against the aforesaid decision, the petitioner again submitted a representation, but no response was received from the respondents. At the same time, respondents have given appointments to respondent Nos. 5 to 12 in other departments. Their cases are similar to the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The respondents have filed the written statement. It is stated that father of the petitioner died on 10.9.2002 at the age of 55 years. The claim of the petitioner was under consideration when the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the 2003 Rules"), were promulgated on 28.2.2003. Subsequently, the respondents had issued instructions on 31.3.2003 in which it was provided that the 2003 Rules shall be applicable to those dependents of the deceased government employees, whose cases are pending as on the date of coming into force of these rules. The cases already decided shall not be re-opened. Since the claim of the petitioner was under consideration, the same had to be decided under the 2003 Rules. However, even the 2003 Rules were amended by the Notification dated 10.2.2004. The Deceased Government Employees (Amendment) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2004 Rules") came into force w.e.f. 4.3.2003. Under these Rules, it was provided as follows :-

(3.) The petitioner was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs as financial assistance under the aforesaid Clause (C). He was, therefore, asked to give his option by letter dated 25.6.2004. The petitioner did not send any reply to the option. It is further stated that in case the petitioner sends the necessary option, the necessary relief will be provided even now. It is further stated in the written statement that in the instructions dated 31.3.2003, it had been clearly mentioned that all pending cases will be decided as per new policy and earlier policy instructions regarding compassionate appointments had been repealed. The operative part of the instructions is as follows :-