- (1.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Communication dated 08.02.2010 (Annexure P-3) of respondent No. 3, by which, claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on two counts, (i) he is over age as his date of birth is 06.10.1974 and (ii) vacancies under Category IV were not available. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner's father was an employee in the respondent-Department as a Picker. His father Late Sh. Dhian Singh died on 20.02.2006. The petitioner, son of the deceased employee, submitted application on 14.07.2006 for compassionate appointment by completing lengthy procedure which is stated in Annexure P-1 from Item No. 1 to 19. In fact, application for compassionate appointment would be routed through a Committee consisting of three members in respect of financial status of the family of the deceased. The Committee submitted a report regarding eligibility etc. Thereafter, the petitioner's grievance relating to compassionate appointment was declined on 08.02.2010 (Annexure P-3) stating that his name has been rostered at Serial No. 1483 for Category IV post with reference to qualification. His date of birth being 06.10.1974, he is over age and as and when vacancies arise in Category IV, his name will be placed before the Committee for the decision. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of respondent No. 3 stating that he is over age and also simultaneously stating that his name be placed before the Committee for fresh decision as and when vacancies arise in Category IV.
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that a very lengthy procedure has been adopted by the respondent-Department for consideration of application under compassionate ground appointment. The said lengthy process has been completed in the year 2006 itself by the official of the respondents and his name has been forwarded for consideration to appoint him on compassionate ground. Till 2010, the respondents have not taken decision on the petitioner's application as well as recommendations made by the Committee. For the first time in the year 2010, the respondents have stated that petitioner is over age. However, he is over age, is not stated in the Communication dated 08.02.2010 as on the date of submission of the application i.e. on 14.07.2006, the petitioner was about 32 years and few months as on the date of application. Under the scheme for compassionate appointment (Annexure P-4), age relaxation provision in respect of upper age limit is stipulated but the respondents have not noticed it. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Annexure P-3, petitioner's name is still under consideration. When respondents have taken a decision that petitioner is over age, under what circumstances, it is stated that his name would be considered for Category IV as and when vacancies arise. On 08.02.2010 (Annexure P-3), on the one hand the respondents have stated that he is over age and on the other hand, it is stated that his name would be considered as and when vacancies arise.
(3.) Thus, the respondents are under utter confuse. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is discrimination in issuing compassionate appointment, those who have applied subsequent to petitioner's claim were appointed out of turn. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out in the pleadings that the same has not been countered by the respondents. Subsequently, by virtue of interim directions of this Court dated 02.02.2015, respondents have filed an application/affidavit in which they have disclosed that they have adopted pick and choose method in respect of one person with reference to the fact that in that case applicant's father was murdered on 12.06.2008, therefore, pick and choose method has been adopted. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's name has been declined or postponed for want of vacancies under Category IV. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out from Annexure P-5, which reveals that respondents have sanctioned strength is departmental 8606 and outsourced 6700, in respect of Watch and Ward Staff.;