- (1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.10.2003, Annexure P-4, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined and order dated 13.1.2006, Annexure P-6 whereby the representation of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been found to be without any merit and has been declined and only ex-gratia financial assistance was found to be admissible.
(2.) Ram Lal Arora, father of the petitioner, while working as Assistant Foreman with the respondent-Nigam, died on 9.3.2002. He left behind his wife Shakuntla, married daughters Shashi Bala and Seema Rani, a married son Anil Kumar and the petitioner who is unmarried son of the deceased. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the instructions issued by the State Government dated 8.5.1995 and 31.8.1995 were applicable which were adopted by the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Nigam), on 2.8.1995 and 3.11.1995 respectively. In view of the said instructions, the mother of the petitioner applied for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. When the matter was pending consideration, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. 2003 Rules'), came into force with publication in the Haryana Government Official Gazette on 4.3.2003, in exercise of the power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said Rules contemplate that all the pending cases have to be decided in terms of such Rules. Thereafter, the case relating to compassionate appointment of the petitioner was examined under the said Rules, but was rejected on 21.10.2003 on the ground that the father of the petitioner was 56 years 10 months and 26 days of age at the time of his death and therefore, in terms of Rule 3 (d) (iii) of 2003 Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees (Amendment) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. 2004 Rules'), notified on 10.2.2004, wherein Rule 3(d)(iii) has been repealed. Therefore, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. Earlier, in pursuance of the directions of this Court, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was again reconsidered by the respondents and an order was passed on 13.1.2006, Annexure P-6, whereby the cash financial assistance was found to be payable in terms of Rule 4(c) of the 2003 Rules, as amended on 10.2.2004.;