RAJ BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four times over, the petitioner was offered compassionate appointment by the police department; firstly, as Peon and then as Constable, but she refused the offers. Having refused compassionate appointment, the underlying object of the policy was sub-served and thereafter she cannot claim compassionate appointment in the present writ petition.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued in this case only to examine the issue of financial assistance and therefore, the scope of the petition was narrowed down to alternative claim for ex gratia financial assistance.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner's father, a government servant, died in harness on 06.12.1994. His widow, namely, Phool Kaur moved an application on 29.12.1994 for providing a job to her son Bhupinder Singh. On 19.04.1995, she again submitted an application that her son Bhupinder Singh be appointed as Assistant. However, on 19.01.1996, she again moved an application for providing a job of Clerk to her married daughter, namely, Raj Bala i.e. the petitioner herein instead of her son. After considering her case, it was clarified by the department vide letter dated 28.04.1997 that the married daughter cannot be offered employment under ex gratia scheme in view of government instructions dated 08.05.1995. Aggrieved by letter dated 28.04.1997, Raj Bala filed Civil Suit No.360 of 2001 claiming compassionate appointment. The suit was decreed on 10.06.2002 by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari to the extent directing the State Government to consider the case of Bhupinder Singh and Raja Bala for ex gratia appointment within one month. Since Bhupinder Singh was not willing to take up employment, the case of Raja Bala petitioner was considered for appointment as Clerk. However, vide order dated 09.08.2002, the Director General of Police, Haryana considered the case of Raj Bala and found that she was not eligible for the post of Clerk, as she was a matriculate with second Division and 10+2 with third Division and, therefore, did not qualify under the rules of service. However, she was offered appointment to the lower post of Peon, which was not accepted. The petitioner filed a contempt petition for not implementing the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2002, which was dismissed. Thereafter, she filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2002, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari being time barred vide judgment dated 22.10.2003. She then filed revision i.e. CR No.678 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2004 directing the Additional District Judge, Rewari to decide the appeal on merits. In compliance thereof, the Additional District Judge, Rewari by judgment and decree dated 16.11.2004 in remand proceedings modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent that the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner be considered under the ex gratia scheme for Class IV post. However, she filed a review application for reviewing the order dated 16.11.2004, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2007. After which, she preferred a regular second appeal bearing RSA No.3384 of 2004 in this Court. This Court modified the judgment and decree and directed that the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner be considered in accordance with the policy decision contained in letter dated 31.08.1995 in view of statement made by her that she would be satisfied if her case is considered as per policy decision contained in that letter. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Director General of Police, Haryana again considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 23.03.2010. Still aggrieved, the petitioner filed Execution Petition No.16 of 2010, which was dismissed on 30.05.2012 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari after which the present petition was filed in the year 2013.