AZAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Compassionate appointment is claimed on account of the death of the Government employee on 11.06.2005, who was the father of the petitioner, dying in harness while working as an Agriculture Development Officer in the Directorate of Agriculture, Haryana. The petitioner was then a minor, who attained the age of majority on 26.01.2008. Immediately, after the death of Nand Lal, the widow applied to the Department informing it that she had lost the only source of income and had no other person to support her family. She applied for grant of ex gratia employment to her son i.e. the petitioner in July, 2005. She sent a reminder in Jan., 2006 again informing and requesting the Department on affidavit in the prescribed proforma to keep her son's case alive till he was of employable age. Meanwhile, the petitioner completed his studies. When he became major, he applied directly for grant of ex gratia appointment on 23.05.2008. The application was considered by the Director, Agriculture Department, Haryana, who declined the request. The order while rejecting the request for a job for the son, accorded sanction of payment of Rs. 2.5 lakh as ex-gratia financial assistance in lieu of service to the wife of late Nand Lal. To reach the conclusion, the order noticed the notifications dealing with compassionate appointments/financial assistances dated 28.02.2003 and 10.02.2004 as well as the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short 'the 2006 Rules'). As such, there is no specific reason assigned for declining the request for compassionate appointment. But the request has been decided against the petitioner by necessary implication invoking Rule 3(b) of the Rules to sanction the financial assistance, inversely declining the request for the primary prayer. This has brought the present petition.

(2.) On notice, the State has filed its written statement and has contested the case. It is admitted that the mother of the petitioner applied on 22.07.2005 for grant of employment under the ex-gratia scheme offered by the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (for short 'the 2003 Rules'). It is explained that the application was forwarded on 11.05.2006 to the competent authority for necessary action. As per Rule 2 of the 2003 Rules, family of the deceased employee has two options i.e. (i) either he can opt for ex gratia appointment on compassionate grounds; or (ii) receive ex gratia compassionate financial assistance of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in cases where the first option is not exercised. As per Rule 9 of these Rules, there is a provision of 5% of sanctioned posts (falling under direct recruitment quota) in Group C & D categories determined by the Head of the Department on 31st March of each year from where such appointments can be made. Rule 9 (a) confers the benefit only if regular posts meant for that purpose are available. It is the categorical stand of the State that there was no vacancy/post from 11.06.2005 to 10.06.2008, the period within three years on attaining majority of the petitioner under the 5% quota. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment.

(3.) It is settled law that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and if the factors constituting relief are not available, the benefit cannot percolate down. In the meanwhile, the State repealed the 2003 and 2005 Rules and replaced them by the 2006 Rules, which came into force on 01.08.2006. The mother of the petitioner submitted her option for monthly financial assistance in a sum equal to the pay and other allowances that was last drawn by the deceased employee in the normal course in terms of 2006 Rules. However, the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana by way of clarification instructions dated 08.06.2007 vide clause-3 deciding that the 2006 Rules are not applicable to the cases where death happened prior to 01.08.2006 and where PPO/GPO have been issued to them had deprived the widow of the right where retiral benefits had been settled. Accordingly, the petitioner's mother was not entitled to the benefits under the 2006 Rules and should remain satisfied with the offer of Rs. 2.5 lakhs under the 2003 Rules. The mother refused to accept the offer or to receive the amount promised by negotiable instrument. Hence, it is urged by the State that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.05.2008 sanctioning Rs. 2.5 lakhs in favour of the petitioner's mother.