LAWS(P&H)-2006-8-529

PUNEET YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On August 29, 2006
PUNEET YADAV Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the order dated December 21,2005 (Annexure P/4) passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, respondent No. 3. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, for appointment against the premature retirement of father of the petitioner on medical grounds.

(2.) The facts, which emerge from the record, show that the father of the petitioner had joined as a conductor with Haryana Roadways with effect from June 13,1976. The petitioner has maintained that conduct of his father during his service career was always good. On a request made by the father of the petitioner on account of a problem with his vision, he was medically examined. As a result of the medical examination, the father of the petitioner was found to be medically unfit for continuation of his job and, as such, was ordered to be retired with effect from September 3,2002. The petitioner claims that as per the policy of the State government, he being one of the dependents of his father, was entitled to employment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the father of the petitioner filed an application on January 15,2003 to provide an employment to the petitioner on compassionate basis. No action was taken by the respondents on the aforesaid request and, consequently, the father of the petitioner filed a C.W.P. No. 13649 of 2005 before this Court.

(3.) The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated September 1,2005 requiring the competent authority to consider the claim of the son of Kanwar Singh (father of the petitioner) for compassionate appointment. In terms of the directions issued by this Court, General Manger, respondent No. 3 has passed a detailed and speaking order whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The aforesaid order Annexure P/4 is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.