Jitendra Chauhan, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 655, 3279, 3468, 6992, 8844, 9707, 10787, 11608, 12102, 13264, 13552, 13690, 14795, 14906, 15789, 17059, 17734, 17904, 18318, 19419 of 2007 and CWP Nos. 853, 908, 1169, 1913, 2794, 2890, 5969, 6258, 6280, 11886, 12102, 12124, 12170, 12230, 12301, 12584, 12589, 12878, 13086, 13172, 13311, 13324, 13362 and 13369 of 2008 as the controversy involved in all the writ petitions is similar. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 8844 of 2007 titled as Sheela Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.
(2.) THE Petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order, dated 6th March, 2007 (Annexure P -8) whereby the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected and also for quashing/setting aside the order dated 9th August, 2006 (Annexure P -9), - -vide which Respondent No. 5 has been appointed as a Constable in the Haryana Armed Police ignoring the claim of the son of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus thereby directing the Respondents to appoint her son on the post of Constable in Haryana Police in place of Respondent No. 5 under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003/2005, dated 18th November, 2005 (Annexure P -10). Further prayer is for issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction which might be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The brief facts of the instant case are that the husband of the Petitioner was working with Respondent No. 3 as ASI. At the time to the death, the husband of the Petitioner was 48 years 5 months and 6 days old. It has been averred in the writ petition that deceased was the sole bread earner of the family and all the family members were solely dependent upon the earning of the deceased. On account of the death, the family was facing acute starvation. To meet the mitigating circumstances of the family of the deceased employee, on 24th October, 2005 the Petitioner applied for appointment of her son, namely Vikash on the basis of compassionate ground. As per the averment, on 26th July, 2006, case of the Petitioner was recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak -RespondentNo. 4 for appointment as a Constable and to the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak as well as to the Director General of Police, Haryana, - -vide letter dated 26th July, 2006. As per record, the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak informed the Petitioner through letter dated 11th September, 2006 for sending her consent for making one time payment according to the ex gratia Policy of 2003/ 2005 or monthly financial help according to the Ex gratia Policy of 2006. However, the Petitioner in pursuance of the letter dated 11th September, 2006 sent by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak made a request for considering the case of her son for appointment as a Constable in the Haryana Police as per the Ex gratia Policy of 2003/ 2005.
(3.) ON 20th October, 2006, the office of Superintendent of Police denied the claim of the son of the Petitioner on the ground that as per the new Ex gratia Policy formulated in the Month of August, 2006, there is no provision of job and as per policy only monthly financial help or assistance or one time amount could be availed by the Petitioner. It is further averred that the Petitioner visited the office of Respondent No. 4 on 22nd October, 2006 requesting to forward the case of her son for appointment but she was conveyed that case of her son could not be recommended on the ground that the Government has formulated new policy in August, 2006 i.e. Ex -gratia Policy of 2006 and there is no provision of offering a job on compassionate ground in the said policy. Thereafter, the Petitioner served an advance notice of writ petition -cum -final demand notice on 25th October, 2006. Left with no alternative remedy, the Petitioner preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 18598 of 2006 titled as Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors. and the same was disposed of on 23rd November, 2006 by a Division Bench of this Court with a direction to the Respondents to decide the legal notice sent by the Petitioner within a period of two weeks.;