- (1.) In the present case, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint petitioner No. 1 on any Class-IV post of Peon/Chowkidar/Mate under ex-gratia Scheme.
(2.) Chandan Singh, father of petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2 was working as Meter Reader with the Dhakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Nigam), who died on 5.6.2003. After the death of his father, petitioner No. 1 sought appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father. However, on 26.9.2006, petitioner No. 2, mother of petitioner No. 1 received a communication from respondent No. 2 to seek her option to avail facility of lump sum amount or to seek facility of monthly financial assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. 2006 Rules'). Petitioner No. 2 replied to the said letter and sought appointment of her son, petitioner No. 1, in lieu of the post held by her husband with the respondent-department. It is the case of petitioner No. 1 that he is entitled to compassionate appointment under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. 2003 Rules') as the said Rules were in force on the date of death of his father. As per the Annexure P-3, the name of the petitioner No. 1 was at Sr. No. 163 of the list of the candidates who have applied for appointment under ex-gratia scheme and who could not be granted appointment under the Policy for appointment upto 31.3.2006.
(3.) In reply, it has been pointed out that under the new ex-gratia policy i.e., the 2006 Rules, the petitioner was advised to signify his acceptance/option in the enclosed proforma to avail the facility of lump sum amount or to avail the facility of monthly financial assistance. It is also pointed out that validity of such list, maintained for appointment on compassionate ground, expired on 31.3.2006 and the case of the petitioner did not turn up for appointment against prescribed quota. Therefore, option of the mother of the petitioner No1 was sought for release of ex-gratia compensation.;