- (1.) The father of the petitioner was working as a Lineman with respondent No. 1 and died in harness on September 13, 1999. The petitioner applied for ex-gratia appointment on May 7, 2002, through proper channel by moving an appropriate application (P-1). Respondent No. 1 found some lacunas in the application of the petitioner and required him to furnish the affidavit to the effect that after getting the job under ex-gratia scheme, the petitioner was to take full responsibility of the family of the deceased. However, on 17.9.2003 (P-3), respondent No. l has rejected the case of the petitioner for ex-gratia appointment on the ground that he was over age. as per Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (for brevity, 'the 2003 Rules'). According to the 2003 Rules, the maximum age limit prescribed for ex-gratia appointment is 25 years, whereas the petitioner has been found to be over 30 years 1 month and 18 days on the date of death of his father.
(2.) On 29.5.2004, notice of motion was issued and the learned Counsel for the respondents while accepting notice along with the copies of the paper book had requested for some time to file written statement. The same request was repeated on 24.9.2004, 7.12.2004, 29.3.2005 and 7.11.2005. However, learned Counsel for the respondents today has stated that the matter can be argued without filing of any written statement. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties.
(3.) Mr. D.P. Sharda, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, the criteria of eligibility has been provided and according to Sub-rule (e) of Rule 8, a married son of the deceased has been made eligible if no other member of the family is eligible for Government service, provided his or her spouse is not already in Government service and unmarried eligible dependent is not willing to join by giving an affidavit to that effect. He has maintained that an exception has been created by the aforementioned Rules and a married son irrespective of the age has been made eligible. He has further urged that the impugned order dated 17.9.2003 (P-3) rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is over age is liable to be quashed.;