Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated 18.12.2003, Annexure P -4 and 13.4.2006, Annexure P -8, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his father Zile Singh, was declined.
(2.) ZILE Singh, father of the petitioner, died on 29.10.2001. After the death of his father, the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground and vide communication dated 4.1.2002, the consent of the petitioner was sought for appointment by the respondents for Class -IV post under the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (hereinafter referred to as the Nigam). Vide the aforesaid communication, clarification of marital status of the petitioner was also sought. The petitioner gave his consent for appointment on Class IV post on compassionate ground, but vide communication dated 18.12.2003, Annexure P -4, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was declined for the reason that the petitioner was more than 25 years of age at the time of death of his father and, therefore, under Rule 3 (e) (ii) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 2003 Rules), the petitioner was not eligible for appointment of compassionate ground. It is the case of the petitioner that Clauses (ii) & (iii) of Rule 3 (e) of the 2003 Rules were amended by the Haryana Government vide notification dated 17.12.2004, Annexure P -5, whereby the age limit was increased to 30 years. It is, thus, case of the petitioner that he was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground under the amended Rules. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was reconsidered by the respondent -department in pursuance of the directions dated 27.1.2006, issued by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4723 of 2004 and vide order dated 13.4.2006, Annexure P -8, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been declined by the respondents for the reason that the case of the petitioner has already been decided in accordance with the age limit of 25 years and, therefore, it is not for the Nigam to selectively modify, change or adopt any part of the said Rules.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that on 17.12.2004, i.e., the date when the Rules were amended, the petitioner was of approximately 29 years of age and was thus, eligible for appointment by way of compassionate appointment under the 2003 Rules. Therefore, the case of the petitioner for appointment of compassionate ground could not be declined for the reason that the case of the petitioner has been decided earlier. Once the High Court has ordered to decide the case of the petitioner afresh, the earlier order declining the claim of the petitioner could not be taken into consideration.;