SAROJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per averments made in para 2 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner's husband Shri Darshan Lal was working as a regular Peon-cum- Chowkidar with the respondent-Bank from December 22, 1979 to October 11, 1988, when unfortunately he died. The petitioner, who is a widow of Darshan Lal deceased, stakes her claim for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the Haryana Government Instructions dated July 13, 1971. According to the petitioner, her husband's service conditions were governed by the Haryana State Central Co-operative Banks Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1975. Rule 36-A of the said Rule reads as under:

(2.) Though the averments made by the petitioner in para 2 that her husband was working as a regular Peon-cum-Chowkidar have not been denied by the respondent-Bank, yet in Para 7(1) of the written-statement, a specific stand has been taken that the petitioner's husband was working on ad hoc basis and according to the Haryana Government Instructions, only one dependent family member of the deceased, who was working on regular basis, would be considered for compassionate appointment and that too depending on the financial condition of the family of the deceased. The Bank had sought clarification from the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, who had opined vide letter dated January 22, 1991 (Annexure P-1) that according to the Haryana Government instructions, the dependent of the deceased employee could only be considered for compassionate appointment if the deceased was working on permanent or regular basis.

(3.) The appointment letter that might have been isued to the petitioner's husband has not been placed on the record to show whether the petitioner's husband was working on regular basis or ad hoc basis. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Haryana Government had been issuing instructions from time to time by which ad hoc employees who had completed as particular period of ad hoc service were entitled to be considered for regularisation. He has referred to instructions dated 3.1.83, 16.2.87 and 30.9.88. According to first set of instructions if an ad hoc employee had completed two years of continuous service as on September 15, 1982, and was in service on that date he was entitled to be considered for regularisation. According to the next set of instructions referred to above, an ad hoc employee who had completed two years' service on November 3, 1986, and was in service on that date was entitled to be considered for regulrisation. According to the third set of instructions, if an ad hoc employee had put in two years of service upto September 30, 1988, he was also entitled to be considered for regularisation. According to the learned counsel, even if the petitioner's husband's was not appointed on regular basis, his case under the aforesaid instructions of the Haryana Government should have been considered for regularisation from the dates mentioned above. These directions, according to him, can even be given now to notionally consider the petitioner's husband's case in case it is found that her husband was entitled to regularisation under any of the aforesaid instructions, then the petitioner's case may be considered for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law keeping in view the Haryana Government instructions on that subject referred to above. I am of the view that the stance taken by the petitioner's counsel is fair.