SURINDER PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment the petitioner Surender Pal has filed this petition and has prayed for quashing of the order Annexure P-l 1 and for issuance of direction to the respondents to give him compassionate appointment on a post commensurate with his qualifications.

(2.) Shri Chattar Singh, father of the petitioner died on 12.2.1986 while serving as JBT teacher in the education department of the Government of Haryana. Shri Chattar Singh was survived by his wife, mother, one minor son i.e. the petitioner and two daughters. On 12.8.1986 Smt. Ramrati, mother of the petitioner, submitted an application to the District Education Officer for reserving one post for the petitioner. On 3.8.1987 the Sub Divisional Education Officer, Kaithal forwarded the application of Smt. Ramrati to the District Education Officer, Kurukshetra for keeping one post reserved for the petitioner. Just before the petitioner had attained majority the Principal of Government Senior Secondary School, Songri Gulyana forwarded the application of the petitioner to the District Education Officer, Kaithal. After the petitioner had attained majority the Deputy Superintendent (Accounts) working in the office of the Director, Primary Education, Haryana wrote letter dated 17.10.1993 to the mother of the petitioner to submit fresh application for appointment of the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner wrote back to the District Primary Education Officer, Kaithal that she had already applied and the matter was pending with the Directorate of Primary and Secondary Education. Thereafter the Director, Education Haryana, wrote to the Chief Secretary, Haryana on 14.1.1994 that sanction may be granted for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The office of the Chief Secretary wrote back to the Director on 23.1.1996 that Head of the Department is competent to give appointment under Ex-gratia policy. After all this had I happened the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order and rejected the U claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that he had not applied within three years of the death of Chattar Singh.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground of arbitrariness, non-application of mind and discrimination. The petitioner has pleaded that he was minor at the time of the demise of his father and, therefore, it was impossible for him to apply for compassionate appointment. Nevertheless his mother had submitted application for compassionate appointment within six months of the death of Shri Chattar Singh and this fact has been ignored by the respondent No. 2 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.