KRISHAN PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner whose date of birth is May 5, 1969 has sought the quashing of the decision taken by the respondents not to extend the benefit of instructions issued by the Government for appointment of the dependent of a Government employee who is retired on having become blind or incapacitated to serve the Government.

(2.) Averments made in the writ petition show that father of the petitioner was employed as a driver while serving in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Safidon, District Jind, father of the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on August 2, 1994 on medical grounds. After he was examined by the Medical Board, the Deputy Commissioner, Jind, issued order, Annexure P4, on June 10, 1995 and retired him with immediate effect. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for employment in lieu of his father's service. This request of the petitioner has been turned down by the respondents on the ground that father of the petitioner had been retired after attaining the age of 55 years.

(3.) The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the delay in the acceptance of the application submitted by the father of the petitioner was occasioned due to the fault and negligence on the part of the office of the Deputy Commissioner and for such delay the petitioner cannot be penalised by being denied the appointment in terms of the policy instructions issued by the Government. Mr. Singh, learned counsel argued that the petitioner ought to have been given employment in lieu of the service rendered by his father and there can be no justification to deprive him of that benefit on account of the fault of the office of the Deputy Commissioner.