The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acceptance of financial assistance under the compassionate assistance rules, and the failure to agitate the grievance for compassionate appointment in a timely manner, rendered the writ petition not maintainable and highly belated.

JUDGMENT

B.S. Walia, J. - Prayer in this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus for directing the respondents to offer appointment to petitioner No. 2 under the ex gratia scheme as also to issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the father of petitioner No. 2 and husband of petitioner No. 1 who was working as ALM in OP Division, DHBVNL, Charkhi Dadri unfortunately died on 29.06.2001 while in service.

3. That in the aforementioned circumstances, petitioner No. 1 submitted an application, Annexure P/2 dated 12.09.2001 to the Managing Director, DHVBNL, Hisar for employment to her son i.e. petitioner No. 2 on compassionate grounds.

4. That in response to the application submitted by petitioner No. 1 for grant of employment on compassionate basis to petitioner No. 2, petitioner No. 1 received a communication, Annexure P/2 dated 25.03.2002 from the Chief Engineer, OP, DHBVNL, Hisar that petitioner No. 2 would be attaining the minimum age for grant of employment i.e. of 17 years on 18.04.2004, therefore application complete in all respects be submitted for grant of employment of petitioner No. 2 before 29.06.2004 on account of death of the petitioners husband/father having taken place on 29.06.2001, failing which the claim for employment would be rejected by the competent authority.

5. That petitioner No. 1 received another communication Annexure P/3 dated 25.05.2003 from the Superintending Engineer/Administration, DHBVNL, Hisar informing of introduction of the 'Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003' with the object of assisting the family of the deceased employee in tiding over the emergency situation resulting from the loss of bread earner by giving option of ex-gratia appointment on compassionate grounds to a member of the family who was completely dependent on the deceased employee and was in extreme financial distress due to the loss of the deceased, namely the government employee who had died in harness or ex gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family of the deceased over and above all other benefits like ex gratia grant due to the family of the deceased to be paid at the rate of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in case the family of the deceased employee did not opt for ex gratia employment. It was also made clear in the aforementioned communication that due to non-availability of sufficient posts, employment cases were lying pending since a number of years and were likely to take 4 5 years more to finalise as the posts were being reduced due to restructuring in the Nigam therefore the chance of employment under the ex gratia scheme were very bleak. It was mentioned that in case the dependents of the deceased were interested to avail the facility of ex gratia compassionate assistance of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, acceptance/option as per enclosed pro forma be submitted failing which it would be treated that the dependants was not willing to avail the cash benefit facility in lieu of ex gratia employment but that option once exercised could not be changed.

6. Petitioner No. 1 claims to have again submitted request by way of affidavit Annexure P-3/4 dated 26.04.2004 signifying no objection if petitioner No. 2 was granted compassionate appointment. Thereafter petitioner No. 1 was issued communication Annexure P/5 dated 30.05.2005 informing that as per the seniority list of claim for ex gratia employment maintained w.e.f. 01.04.2003 in accordance with the provisions of rule 6 (1) sub rule (a) and (b) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules 2003 and as per rule 9 (b) of the ibid Rules 2003 appointments could be made up to a maximum of 5% of the sanctioned posts falling under the d