VERY IMPORTANT POINTS
1. If the scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground is extended to all sorts of casual, ad-hoc employees including those who are working as Apprentices, then such scheme cannot be justified on constitutional grounds.
2. Appointments on compassionate ground cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules.
3. When the Government of Haryana by an order dated 31-10-1985 extends the benefit of appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased employee the expression employee does not conceive casual or purely ad-hoc employee or those who are working as apprentices.

JUDGMENT

N.P. Singh, J.-Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana for setting aside the orders passed on two writ petitions filed by respondents Rani Devi and Anguri Devi, directing the appellant-State to appoint the said respondents against class-IV posts on compassionate grounds in view of the fact that their respective husbands died while working as Apprentice Canal Patwaris. The husband of respondent Rani Devi worked as Apprentice Canal Patwari from 25.8.1987 to 25.2.1989, whereas the husband of respondent Anguri Devi worked as Apprentice Canal Patwari from 15.7.1992 to 2.6.1993.

3. There is no dispute that the husbands of the two respondents had been appointed on ad-hoc basis as Apprentice Canal Patwaris. According to the State Government, in this background there is no question of issuing any direction in respect of appointments of the respondents who are the widows on compassionate grounds. In this connection, our attention was drawn to the Punjab Civil Services Rules which we are informed are in force even in the State of Haryana. Paragraph 2.6 of Chapter II defines Apprentice to mean a person deputed for training in a trade or business with a view to employment in Government service, who draws pay at monthly rates from the Government during such training, but is not employed in or against a substantive vacancy in the cadre of the department. Reference was also made to the decision of the State Government which was notified on 9.5.1972 saying that the scheme of benefit of ex-gratia payment to the dependant of the employees of the Haryana Government who died while in service was not applicable to ad-hoc employees. The stand of the State is that any scheme in respect of payment of ex-gratia grant or giving an appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased Government employee is not applicable to casual, ad-hoc employees or employees who are just apprentices.

4. It appears that on 31.10.1985, a communication was issued by the State Government to all concerned saying that Government had introduced payment of ex-gratia grant for the welfare of the deceased Government employees in order to assist the members of the bereaved family for settling themselves. The scheme also conceived giving employment to one of the dependants of the deceased employee. According to the State, the expression employee used in the aforesaid communication shall not include casual, ad-hoc employee or a person who has been appointed as an Apprentice.

5. The question of appointment of one of the dependants of an employee of the State or Central Government who dies while in service has of late assumed importance and subject matter of controversy before different courts. This Court in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.1, after referring to the Government Memorandum under which the appointment on compassionate ground was being claimed observed that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread earner in the family. It cannot be disputed that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the equality clause under Article 14 and can be upheld if such appointees can be held to form a class by themselves, otherwise any such appointment merely on the ground that the person concerned happens to be a dependant of an ex-employee of the State Government or the Central Government shall be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. But this Court has held that if an employee dies while in service then according to rule framed by the Central Government or the State Government to appoint one of the dependants shall not be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because it is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread earner of the family and sudden misery faced by the members of the family of such employee who had served the Central Government or the State Government. It app