LAWS(P&H)-2008-3-272

SURESH NANDAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On March 18, 2008
SURESH NANDAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the communication dated 11.1.2007, Annexure P-4, whereby the ex-gratia compensation to the tune of Rs. 2.5 lacs has been communicated to be paid to the petitioners.

(2.) M/s Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) is alleged to be controlled and administered by the officer appointed by the State of Haryana. The administrative and financial control of the respondent-Bank is alleged to be in the hands of the Haryana Government. The father of the petitioner namely Dharam Pal Nandal was working as Senior Accountant in the respondent-Bank. He died on 30.8.2002. Petitioner No.2, wife of the deceased, made a representation on 12.9.2002 for appointment of her son petitioner No.1 on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband Dharam Pal. The respondentbank decided to appoint petitioner No.1 as Clerk, but on the request made by petitioner No.2, respondent-bank kept reserve the post of Junior Accountant for petitioner No.1 keeping in view his educational qualification. Subsequently, on 2.3.2004, again a request was made by the petitioner No.2 for appointment of petitioner No.1 as Clerk on compassionate ground.

(3.) The Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. 2003 Rules') were framed by the State of Haryana which came into force on 28.2.2003. It is the claim of the petitioners that request made by petitioner No.2 on 2.3.2004 for appointment of petitioner No.1 to the post of Clerk was required to be considered, but the Board of Directors have passed a resolution on 17.4.2006 for grant of ex-gratia compensation to the tune of Rs. 2.5 lacs to the petitioners. It is alleged that the said resolution is violative of their own Rules which were prevalent at the time when the case of petitioner No.1 was considered and it was decided to appoint petitioner No.1 on compassionate ground.