G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) DESPITE the fact that the Government of Haryana had issued circular letter No. 9054-4gs-70/32231 dated December 22, 1970 ' (Annexure P-1) almost twenty-four years ago for giving employment on compassionate ground to one of the members of the family of a deceased Government servant and which circular, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been adopted and made applicable to the service of the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation (respondent No. 2 ). The petitioner has been denied appointment as a dependent of the deceased employee Munshi Ram and inaction on the part of respondent No. 2 to give employment to the petitioner as a dependent of the deceased employee has compelled him to seek redress from this Court by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 is public sector undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act. According to the petitioner, it is an instrumentality of the State of Haryana and this statement of the petitioner has not been controverted by the respondents. Father of the petitioner, Shri Munshi Ram, was appointed as T. Mate in the service of the respondent-Corporation on 4. 2. 1974. He died on 27. 12. 1992, while in service. He is survived by his widow, three daughters and three sons (including the petitioner ). Elder brother of the petitioner, namely Sham Lal is independently employed at Ambala and according to the petitioner, he is residing separately. Other members of the family were dependent on the deceased Munshi Ram. After the death of Shri Munshi Ram, the petitioner made an application in the prescribed form for being appointed as a dependent of the deceased employee of respondent No. 2. He filed requisite affidavit and fulfilled all other required conditions. According to the petitioner, although he and his family had done every thing on their own part as early as in March, 1993, respondent No. 2 has not issued appointment order in favour of the petitioner in accordance with Ex-gratia Scheme (Annexure P-1 ). The petitioner has made reference to the fact that one member each from the family of Jai Singh and Bahadur Singh have been given appointment as dependents of deceased Government servants under the Ex gratia scheme and has pleaded that he has been subjected to discrimination by sheer inaction on the part of the respondents. He has placed reliance on an order dated November 9, 1992, passed in C. W. P. No. 6526 of 1992 (Raj Kumari v. State of Haryana and Anr. ).
(3.) NO return has been filed by either of the respondents and in the absence of a return, the averments made in the writ petition will have to be treated as correct.;