KARAMBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by an unsuccessful plaintiff. The claim in the suit is for compassionate appointment in place of deceased Government employee Ram Chander, the plaintiff's father, who died on 12.10.2003. The plaintiff applied for ex gratia appointment and submitted necessary documents with the defendants as demanded by them to process the case. His father was a Driver in PWD (B&R) Branch, Kurukshetra. The claim was based on notification dated 28.02.2003, which set apart 5% of the total sanctioned vacancies posts in the cadre of Cleaner to be filled on compassionate grounds from the dependents of the deceased Government employee.

(2.) The suit was contested. It was stated that Vimla Devi, widow of deceased Ram Chander and mother of the plaintiff, requested to the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. II Haryana, PWD (B&R) Branch, Kurukshetra through her application dated 02.03.2004 to employ her son, who turned major after about two years from the death of his father. The name of the plaintiff figured in the register of pending cases at Sr. No. 17-A for Class-IV post. His name was to be considered for providing employment as and when his turn comes. Alas, his turn never came till the Haryana Government floated Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees' Rules, 2006 (for short '2006 Rules'), and notified them on 01.08.2006. Rule 6 of 2006 Rules provided that all the pending cases of ex gratia assistance shall be covered under the new Rules. However, only calculation of the period and payment shall be made to such cases from the date of notification, which was prospective in nature. Rule 6 also provided an option to opt for the lump sum ex gratia grant provided in the earlier Rules of 2003 and 2005, as the case may be. These Rules did away with ex gratia employment and replaced the scheme with financial assistance alone to the exclusion of right to employment. If the employee died during the operation of 2003 Rules and opted for lump sum ex gratia amount, then he can get financial assistance provided at the rate of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and if the employee died when the 2005 Rules were current and opted for lump sum ex gratia amount, then a higher amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was fixed. The case of the plaintiff was pending, when the 2006 Rules were notified, which did away with ex gratia employment altogether. Accordingly, the case of the plaintiff was rejected and the family was advised that they could still opt for lump sum ex gratia amount as if the case was treated pending, then family could opt for monthly financial assistance up to the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years according to the 2006 Rules.

(3.) Against the rejection order regarding employment, the suit was brought in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra bearing Civil Suit No. 710 of 2009 instituted on 15.03.2007/04.08.2009. Pleadings were exchanged and issues were struck. Evidence was led by the parties. The trial Court held that right to such employment had been replaced by the financial scheme and, therefore, a direction or mandatory injunction could not be issued for employment. The sequence of events was not in dispute and the rights agitated in the case were tested on the policies and ultimately on a consideration of documents the suit was dismissed.