NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 14.02.2013 vide Annexure P8 by which his claim for appointing him on compassionate ground to the post of Clerk from the date of sanctioning vide order dated 02.01.2003.

(2.) Petitioner's father while working as a Hindi Teacher passed away on 09.10.2001. Petitioner submitted an application on compassionate ground to appoint him in the Department on 15.11.2001. The same was duly considered by the Head of the Department of the Education Department on 001.2003 vide Annexure P1 while sanctioning for appointment of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 25.03.2004, sanction order dated 001.2003 was withdrawn and supplementary order was also passed on 20.07.2004. Withdrawal and passing of supplementary order was the subject matter in writ petition No. 15336 of 2004. This court was pleased to set aside the order dated 25.03.2004 and supplementary order dated 20.07.2004 on 30.08.2006 in CWP No. 15336 of 2004. Further this court was pleased to observe that sanctioned order dated 001.2003 shall be deemed to have come into operation and petitioner is entitled to be appointed for the post of Clerk in the subordinate office of the Education Department, Haryana. Despite such an order of this court, the respondents failed to implement the orders of this court. In the year 2007, they preferred a special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed stating that delay condoned, we see no reasons to interfere on 20.07.2007. Thereafter, the respondents have not implemented the order passed by this court on 30.08.2006. It was only implemented on 14.01.2009. Appointing the petitioner as Clerk is prospective in nature. Thus, the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of appointing him prospectively w.e.f. 14.01.2009, he preferred an application/representation before the competent authority. The competent authority has rejected petitioner's claim vide Annexure P8 dated 14.02013. Hence the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this court has held that petitioner is entitled for appointment with reference to sanction order which would come into operation and the petitioner is entitled to be appointed for the post of Clerk. Such an order was passed on 30.08.2006. But still the respondents have not appointed the petitioner. Even the respondents have suffered an order before the Supreme Court on 20.07.2007. Thus, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in appointing the petitioner on 14.01.2009 that too, it is a prospective. Having regard to the orders passed by this court, the petitioner is entitled for appointment w.e.f. 02.01.200