- (1.) The petitioner seeks for compassionate appointment under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Scheme of the year 2003 and 2005 on the ground that his father who was in government service died while still in service and he has been rendered orphan at an early age of seven years as his mother also died soon thereafter. It was a case of death of the father of the petitioner in the year 1999 and a claim for compassionate appointment had been made by the petitioner after he had attained majority in the year 2007. The petitioner would refer to clause 18 of 2003 rules that provide for relaxation which is reproduced as under:- "There shall be no relaxation of any provision of these rules. However, as a special case, these rules shall be relaxed only in the cases of children who have become orphans, shall remain alive till one child has attained majority/minimum eligible age for entry into Government service." A similar clause was also introduced in the 2005 rules providing for relaxation through clause 18. The said rule is also reproduced:- "As a special case in exceptional circumstances, any provision of these rules shall be relaxed by the Government in the case of extraordinary hardship to the family of deceased Government employee at the level of Chief Minister, Haryana. As a special case, rules shall be relaxed in the case of the children who have become orphan upon the demise of the Government employee in regard to minimum age only. The claim of appointment of such orphans shall remain alive till one child has attained majority/minimum eligible age for entry into Government service."
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to certain interim orders passed on 7.2.2011 passed by this Court where the respondent was directed to consider the case of the petitioner with compassion and report to the Court. It appears that when the decision had not been taken pursuant to the directions, the Court had also issued a notice to show cause against taking action for contempt on 4.5.2011 soon thereafter a communication came to be issued on 7.2.2011 by the Chief Engineer, Hooda to the Superintending Engineer to grant an approval for appointment of the petitioner as Beldar in the pay scale of 4400-7440 with grade pay of 1300/- as a special case. Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that although the approval had been for grant of regular appointment on a scale of pay, he has not been issued with such an order of appointment but he has been allowed only the benefit of appointment as a Beldar at the rate of 140.02 per day. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioner was not in compliance with the communication already issued on 17.2.2011 and he would urge that he is entitled to be issued with an order of regular appointment, having regard to the subsequent order that came to be passed. Learned counsel would also bring to support his contentions that a decision rendered by this Court in Renu Bala Vs. State of Haryana and others,2011 1 RSJ 253 allowing for applicability of the rules of 2003 by extending the relaxation to a case of an orphan and providing with an appointment although the death had happened in the year 1987 when the prevalent rules of 1985 did not provide for such relaxation. Learned counsel for the petitioner's argument would be that he is entitled to a consideration of his case in the light of the judgment referred to above.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would contend that the order dated 17.2.2011 ought not be construed as a letter of appointment for it was merely a communication which was later withdrawn and an affidavit setting out the details has also been filed through Sh. L.K.Ahuja, Xen, Divn.No.1, Hisar that the letter dated 17.2.2011 was withdrawn by subsequent letter issued by the then Chief Engineer, Hooda vide letter NO.2670 of 20.2.2011 and in compliance of altered directions, an order was issued by the Xen engaging the petitioner as Beldar on daily wages and that he is continuing as such from 6.5.2011.;