HIMA KOHLI, J. - (1.)The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for a writ, order or direction to be issued to the respondent No.2 Corporation to grant compassionate appointment to her son on a suitable post on account of the death of her husband, who was an employee of the respondent No.2 Corporation.
(2.)Facts leading upto the present petition briefly stated, are as follows. The petitioner is the widow of late Shri. Ram Singh, who joined service with M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent Corporation") in October 1981 and was confirmed in service in October, 1982. The husband of the petitioner met with an accident on 29th September, 1992. At the relevant time, all her four children were minor, the eldest son being 12 years of age. On 28th July, 1998, after attaining majority, Sh. Anil Kumar, eldest son of the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground, and accordingly he was asked to appear for the written test/interview, which he failed to clear on various occasions. Hence he was not considered for compassionate appointment and in accordance with circular dated 8th October, 2001, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was offered by the respondent Corporation to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. It is this decision of the respondent Corporation to grant lump sum compensation to the petitioner instead of compassionate appointment to her son, that the petitioner seeks to challenge by way of the present petition.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the very outset that the petitioner herself being illiterate and having the responsibility of raising four minor children, could not apply for compassionate appointment, immediately after the death of her husband and it was only in July, 1998 that her eldest son could apply for compassionate appointment. It was stated that on being called for the written test, the son of the petitioner appeared for said test on 4th January, 2001 and even cleared the same. It was pointed out that the respondent Corporation had failed to produce the result of petitioner"s son in the said test and therefore an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the respondent Corporation on the said ground.