Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) The petitioner's husband was appointed as an Electrician. He had taken two days casual leave on 21.1.1992 which was granted. The petitioner did not report for duty w.e.f. 24.1.1992 and accordingly he was chargesheeted on 3.3.1992. Since no reply was forthcoming, an Enquiry Officer was appointed who submitted his report on 27.10.1992, on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 22.3.1993 terminating the services of the petitioner. The order of termination was subsequently published in the newspaper on 27.3.1993.
(2.) The petitioner contended that her husband left for work on 21.1.1992, but never returned after duty. In 1991, the petitioner approached the respondent to give her an employment in order to sustain herself and her family till such time as her husband was found. Since no action was taken on her representation, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11233 of 1998, which was disposed of by an order dated 31.3.1998 directing the authority concerned to decide the representation. The authority concerned rejected the representation of the petitioner vide its order dated 3.9.1998 on the ground that the services of the petitioner had been terminated by an order dated 22.3.1993 and therefore, the question of giving employment to the petitioner on compassionate founds under the Dyinng in Harness Rules does not arise. The petitioner thereafter, did nothing in the matter and filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13160 of 1999 alleging that since her husband was missing for the last seven years, he was presumed to be dead and therefore, the petitioner should be given a job on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules. This Court vide order dated 12.4.1999 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioner for an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules in the light of the fact that her husband was missing for more than seven years and was presumed to have died a civil death.
(3.) Based on the directions given by the High Court, the petitioner again made a representation dated 20.4.1999, which was again rejected by an order of the Competent Authority dated 16.6.1999. It transpires that the petitioner thereafter, filed an appeal, which was also rejected by an order dated 16.8.1999. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of the orders dated 16.6.1999 and 16.8.1999 and further praying that she should be given an employment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules.;