ANAND Vs. UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the petitioner was working as Work Mate in the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board since 1.4.1981. He died on 1.6.2002 while working with respondent No. 2, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Nigam), the successor of the Haryana State Electricity Board. The petitioner applied for the appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his father. Earlier, the petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 10619 of 2003 before this Court, claiming appointment on compassionate ground. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 15.7.2003 with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice of the petitioner. In pursuance of such directions, an order has been passed by the respondents on 4.11.2003 wherein it was communicated that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment will be decided in terms of the seniority, on his turn in view of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. 2003 Rules').

(2.) On 26.4.2006, vide Annexure P-4, the petitioner was communicated that the validity of the seniority list has expired on 31.3.2006 and, therefore, he cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground. Vide the said communication, an option was given to the petitioner to opt for cash financial assistance in stead of compassionate appointment, within a period of one month of the expiry of validity of the seniority list, which was valid upto 31.3.2006. It is the said communication which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the case "Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2007 3 RSJ 121" and "Neeraj Malik v. State of Haryana and others, 2007 1 RSJ 235", to contend that compassionate appointment is to be given as per the policy applicable on the date of death of the employee.

(3.) In reply, it has been pointed out that the compassionate appointment under ex-gratia scheme has been given strictly as per the seniority maintained by the respondents. Since the name of the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 195 in the seniority list of Class IV category, whereas the employment under this category has been given upto Sr. No. 45 at the time of expiration of the validity of the seniority list on 31.3.2006, therefore, in terms of Rule 6 of the 2003 Rules, an option has been rightly given to the petitioner to opt for cash financial assistance.