SANDEEP MEHTA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the orders dated 15.9.1995 (Annex.P/7), 13.3.2003 (Annex.P/2) and 5.12.2007 (Annex.P/8) and for directing the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner no.2 on compassionate basis.
(3.) FACTS in brief are that the petitioner no.1's husband Ayodhya Lal was an employee of Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (referred to herein after as 'the sugar mills'). He went missing in the year 1993 whereupon the petitioner requested the respondent authority to grant her the amount of P.F. and other dues and also prayed for compassionate appointment of her son the petitioner no.2 but the respondents insisted upon production of death certificate of Ayodhya Lal. A declaratory suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Azamgarh in the year 2000 which came to be allowed by order Annex.P/1 dated 15.2.2002 and issued a declaration to the effect that Ayodhya Lal had expired and his legal representatives were the petitioners herein and his two sons Sadanand and Santosh. Copy of the judgment passed by the Civil Court supported with an application was submitted to the respondents praying for the dues accruing on account of death of Sh. Ayodhya Lal and also for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner no.2. The said application seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner no.2 and for other benefits was rejected by order Annex.P/2 dated 13.3.2003. The petitioners approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5663/2004 against the said rejection order and this Court by order dated 15.12.2004 gave them liberty to submit a fresh representation to the respondents and the respondents were directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned order. Accordingly, a representation was submitted on behalf of the petitioners to the respondents along with the copy of the order dated 15.12.2004. The said representation was also dismissed by order Annex.P/8 dated 5/10.12.2007. Hence, the instant writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 15.9.1995 which is referred to in order Annex.P/8 terminating the services of Ayodhya Lal is per se bad in the eye of law because the said order was passed in gross disregard to the principles of natural justice and without following the procedure prescribed by law. He submits that the very genuineness and sanctity of this order is in doubt because had any such order been in existence, then the respondents were bound to mention and rely upon it while rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioners in the year 2003. He relies on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Phooli Devi and Ors,2003 1 WLC(Raj) 479 and contends that in identical situation, the Division Bench directed the concerned department to give compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.;