The policy applicable at the time of the employee's death should be invoked to provide immediate relief in cases of compassionate appointment, and a delayed application for compassionate appointment may render the immediate crisis redundant.

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of an order/communication dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure P-4 with the petition), by which his claim for appointment on compassionate basis, to a post in the respondent bank, has been rejected, informing him that the Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Department of Cooperation (respondent no.1 herein), had intimated the petitioner that the “matter has been filed after consideration”.

The petitioner consequently further seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus by way of a direction to the respondents, to consider his case for appointment in terms of the 'ex-gratia scheme' promulgated by the Government of Haryana (stated to be applicable to the respondent bank also), in view of the fact that vide a resolution dated 31.01.1995 (copy Annexure P-1), passed by the Board of Directors of the bank (respondent no.4), it had been resolved that the application of the petitioners' mother, reserving the right of her son for such appointment, should be accepted.

2. The background to the matter is that the father of the petitioner, Sultan Singh, was working as an Establishment Officer/Junior Accountant in the respondent bank, i.e. The Bhiwani Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Bhiwani, and while in service he unfortunately died on 16.09.1994.

The petitioner being a minor, his mother Smt. Shakuntala Devi made an application to the bank on 24.11.1994, to reserve one post for the petitioner for appointment on ex-gratia basis, which was considered and accepted, as noticed above, vide the aforesaid resolution. A copy of the resolution has been annexed as Annexure P-1 with the petition, with the decision taken thereon conveyed to the petitioners' mother by the Managing Director of the bank (respondent no.4 herein), vide a communication dated 22.02.1995 (copy Annexure P-2).

3. The petitioner is stated to have passed the 10+2 examination in the year 2004 at the age of 19 years, after which his mother, vide a letter dated 21.06.2004, requested the Managing Director to appoint the petitioner on the post of a Daftri, in terms of the aforesaid decision, with further reminders sent on 18.08.2004 and 15.09.2005.

4. On 11.07.2005, the Board of Directors of the bank is stated to have considered the aforesaid request, and thereafter resolved “to take guidance from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, in order to complete the process”. Accordingly, a request was sent to the Registrar by the General Manager of the bank on 22.07.2005 (copy Annexure P-3), a perusal of which shows that the background of the case (including the resolution passed on 31.01.1995), has been referred to in the letter, as has the fact that legal opinion was obtained from three lawyers (though the actual opinion is not reproduced in the letter). The Registrar vide his letter dated 28.09.2005 (not annexed with the petition), is stated to have asked the General Manager to follow the guidelines “under the Scheme of 2003”.

5. Thereafter it seems the matter remained dormant till 04.10.2012, when another representation was made by the petitioners' mother. The matter was again considered by the Board of Directors, with the matter resolved to be sent to the Financial Commissioner, Department of Cooperation (respondent no.1), to clarify as to whether the post reserved for the family member of the deceased employee, should now be given to the petitioner or not.

A similar resolution is stated to have been passed by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 04.01.2013, with guidelines sought from the Chief Executive Officer of the bank vide a letter dated 12.01.2013. However, prior to that, a refusal came in the form of the impugned letter dated 30.04.2012.

6. It is therefore contended in the petition, that the matter having been referred to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, many a time, seeking guidance whether employment should be provided to the petitioner or not, as his right a