Karam Chand Puri, J. - (1.) THIS is a Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/ of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certioraris for quashing letter dated 23.5.2006 (Annexure P -6) as also for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the son of the petitioner.
(2.) AS per the case of the petitioner, her husband expired on 3.5.2004 during his service tenure with respondent No. 5. The petitioner moved an application to respondent no.5 by mentioning that her son was 16 years old and a prayer was also made to give him appointment on compassionate ground on his attaining the age of majority. Respondent No. 5 referred the application to respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 wrote a letter dated 29.7.2004 to respondent No. 5 mentioning that as per Haryana Government instructions, there were two options available to the son of deceased employee i.e. Sarwan Kumar. One option was the post of Peon -cum -Chowkidar to be kept reserved for Kamal Kant son of late Shri Sarwan Kumar till the official attain the age of 18 years and the second option was to have financial assistance of Rs. 2,25,000/ -. The petitioner on receiving the said letter dated 29.7.2004 on 2.8.2004, gave her option for appointment of her son on compassionate ground on attaining his age of majority. The respondents accepted the option of the petitioner. The son of the petitioner, Kamal Kant, attained the age of majority on 24.3.2006 and thereafter the petitioner moved the respondents for appointment of her son on compassionate ground. The respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 23.5.2006 rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment of her son on compassionate ground and held that the petitioner was entitled for only ex -gratia grant. The petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 4 declining service to her son being illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as violative of instructions/policy issued by the Government from time to time for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is stated that the Government of Haryana has issued instructions dated 3.11.1988, Annexure P -7, in which it was mentioned that the dependent of the deceased is entitled for compassionate appointment on attaining the age of 17 years. The said instructions were adopted by the respondent -department. The son of the petitioner possesses necessary qualification for appointment to the post of Peon. The petitioner is a poor lady and after the death of her husband in the year 2004, she has a miserable life with her six children, out of which four are girls and two are sons. The Government of Haryana has issued new policy, vide notification dated 28.2.2003, wherein it is laid down that the dependents of the deceased government employee shall give in writing the preference within three years of the death of the government employee, for ex -gratia appointment on compassionate ground, due to extreme financial distress on account of loss of deceased or ex -gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/ -. On put to notice, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that new Government notification dated 3.8.2006 has come into force regarding ex -gratia appointment and according to that policy all the pending cases have to be decided as per that notification. According to Rule 6 of the said notification, all pending cases of ex -gratia assistance shall be covered under the new Rules and the families will have the option to opt for lump -sum ex -gratia grant provided in Rule of 2003 or 2005, as the case may be, in lieu of monthly financial assistance provided under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependent of the deceased government employee. Minor dependent, as a matter of right, has no right to appointment on attaining the age of majority in view of case reported as Mahipal v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) R.S.J. 53. This Hon'ble Court in the case reported as Ram Lal v. State of Haryana, 2001(4) R.S.J. 781 has held that there is no vested right to seek appointment on compassionate ground. On merit, it is admitted that Sarwan Kumar was the employee of respondent No. 5. It is also admitted that he expired on 3.5.2004 and the Government Rules, dated 31.3.2003 were applicable. The grant of ex -gratia appointment it to be considered in accordance with latest notification dated 3.8.2006 and the request for appointment of Kamal Kant, son of the petitioner, has been rightly rejected in view of the amended policy.
(3.) WE have heard the counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case. The controversy in the present writ is whether the petitioner's son Kamal Kant, is entitled to compassionate appointment as a Peon and the claim of the petitioner for appointment of Kamal Kant has been rejected in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.;