LAWS(P&H)-2008-3-304

MANGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Decided On March 28, 2008
MANGAT RAM Appellant
V/S
State Of Haryana And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking to quash the orders dated 31.5.2006, Annexure P-18 and 12.6.2006, Annexure P-19, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was declined as no post meant for appointment on compassionate ground, was available.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that his father namely Niranjan Lal Sharma was working with the respondent No. 3-College as Peon. He died on 12.5.2001. The mother of the petitioner sought appointment of the petitioner as Peon on compassionate ground in terms of the policy prevalent at that time i.e, the policy dated 8.5.1995 and 31.8.1995. Subsequently, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. 2003 Rules'), came into force on 4.3.2003 for grant of compassionate appointment or compassionate financial assistance to the dependent members of the deceased employee. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.11.2003 for grant of compassionate appointment. After the exchange of some correspondence, a letter was addressed to the respondent No. 3 on 15.12.2005, Annexure P-12, to get the formalities regarding appointment of the dependents of the deceased employee, completed. It is also stipulated in that communication to mention whether the applicant is in need of compassionate appointment or Rs. 2.5 lacs. In response to the communication, Annexure P-12, the mother of the petitioner filed an affidavit on 19.12.2005 stating therein that she is not willing to get Rs. 2.5 lacs against the ex-gratia scheme from the department and she will not raise any objection in this regard in future. After seeking an option from the petitioner, a communication was addressed on 31.5.2006, Annexure P-18, declining the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as no post for compassionate appointment was available.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that though the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined, but once it is found that the post is not available for appointment on compassionate ground, an option was required to be given by the respondents to the petitioner for grant of financial assistance in terms of Rule 6 (c) of the 2003 Rules. It is contended that an intimation is required to be given to the dependents of the deceased Government employee after the expiry of validity of the list prepared by the department so as to seek their option for grant of compassionate financial assistance. Since no option has been sought from the petitioner, therefore, the case of the petitioner for grant of financial assistance will be treated as pending case and, thus, the petitioner would be entitled to seek financial assistance in terms of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. 2006 Rules'). Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6005 of 2007, titled as Kuldip Kumar v. Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another, 2008 2 SCT 254 (P&H) decided on 12.3.2008, wherein, in a case where the option was not sought from the dependents of the deceased Government employee after the expiry of the validity of the list, it was treated as pending case and the financial assistance in terms of the 2006 Rules was ordered to be granted to the dependents of the deceased employee.