Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) The petitioner was rendered orphan at the age of 41/2 years. He was born on 03.03.1989. His mother died on 05.01.1993. His father, a Constable in Haryana Police died on 17.08.1993 while in service. The petitioner pursued his studies and passed his matriculation examination in 2004 and the secondary examination in 2007. At the age of 19 years, he requested for ex gratia appointment in the office of Director General of Police, Haryana. The request was not considered and he served a legal notice demanding justice by consideration of his case, which also bore no fruit. He approached this Court by filing CWP No.18455 of 2008, which was disposed of with a direction to decide the legal notice served by the petitioner. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Rohtak vide order dated 01.01.2009 has rejected the case of the petitioner for the following reasons: (i) The petitioner did not apply for benefit under ex gratia scheme within statutory period of three years. Since the petitioner did not avail that opportunity at that time, he cannot claim any benefit under the scheme, which was in force at that time; (ii) The petitioner has never visited the office seeking compassionate appointment or grant him ex gratia financial assistance; (iii) The Department has never given any assurance that when the petitioner became major he will be appointed compassionately in place of his father; (iv) The Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, notified on 01.08.2006, leaves no accommodation for compassionate appointment; & (v) The petitioner's family is getting family pension after the death of his father and all other dues have already been released/received by the family. The claim has been rejected as devoid of merit.
(2.) The State has filed a reply to contest the same on the same lines as are assigned in the impugned order.
(3.) When this matter came up for hearing on 22.07.2010, Coordinate Bench passed the following interim order: "It is unfortunate case of Orphan, who is made to face one hurdle after another. This prayer for compassionate appointment is being declined on the ground that he is delayed in making the approach. The counsel for the petitioner also contest the submission that he has already been granted pension. The person filing and signing the reply is making reference to the order passed by the Supreme Court that delay in seeking compassionate appointment is to be taken into consideration and loses significance after lapse of time. This stand is taken without considering the facts that the petitioner was an orphan and had no one to tell him or to guide to make an application. How could a young orphan be expected to act in this manner. Insensitivity of the person filling the reply is clearly apparent and seen. Let the person filing the reply i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Rohtak be present in the Court on the next date. Adjourned to 28.07.2010. This requirement be communicated to him by the State counsel.";