- (1.) The father of the petitioner working as A.L.M. in the office of Haryana State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') died on 26.1.2002 in harness leaving behind his wife and the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he is married having three children, and was dependent upon his father. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected vide impugned order dated 5.7.2004 (Annexure P-8) on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment being above 25 years at the time of his father's death. It has been averred that after the death of his father, he had applied for compassionate appointment under ex gratia scheme on 21.5.2004 and his mother had opted for ex gratia appointment in preference to the compassionate financial assistance. Pursuant to the notice of motion, the respondents have filed a written statement contesting the petition on the ground that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right after a lapse of three years from the death of the employee; there is no provision in the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (for short Rs. 2003 Rules') to provide compassionate appointment to a person, who is more than 25 years of age.
(2.) Shri Jatin Salwan, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the petitioner is an indigent person and as such he is entitled to compassionate appointment under the ex gratia scheme applicable at the time of his father's death in 2002. The claim of compassionate appointment has been wrongly rejected under the 2003 Rules, which came into operation on 28.2.2003 after the death of his father. The age of entry into service as per Condition 3.6(a) of the General Conditions of Service as applicable in the State of Haryana is 40 years and he was entitled for the relaxation of age for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the respondents. It is an admitted fact that the family pension is being paid to the family of the deceased and the ex gratia financial assistance has been offered to family in accordance with the 2003 Rules. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was more than 25 years of age at the time of his father's death and being married had an independent family consisting of three children as averred in the petition. We are of the opinion that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994 4 SCC 138, the petition deserves to be dismissed. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :- "As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of any employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood." The above said observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed by this Court in a number of judgments upholding the decision of the State in rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment. So far as 2003 Rules are concerned, in Phoola Kumari Verma v. State of Haryana and another, CWP 6167 of 2005, decided on 25.4.2005, the retrospective applicability of the Act notified on 28.2.2003 was questioned. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Bijender Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2005 2 SCT 706, decided on 17.3.2005 and noticing the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Nagpal's case , the contentions seeking compassionate appointment were rejected.;