Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:-

“(i). That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents for treating her appointment on regular basis w.e.f. 4.11.2010 alongwith all consequential benefits.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, Sh. Piar Singh, who was working as a Peon, in the Department of Excise and Taxation, died in harness on 09.02.2008. After his death, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate basis. The petitioner was appointed as a daily wage Peon on 04.11.2010 and she continued to serve as such till her services were regularized on 23.08.2017. The contention of the petitioner is that she should have been appointed on regular basis from the initial date of her appointment and not on daily wage basis and it is in this backdrop, the present petition has been filed, praying for the reliefs, as already enumerated hereinabove.

3. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent- Department is that the petitioner accepted the offer of appointment on daily wage basis, without any protest and she continued to serve as such till she was regularized in the year 2017. It is further the stand of the Department that the petition was filed belatedly after 13 years and therefore, the same is hit by delay and laches. It is further the stand of the Department, as has been contended by learned Additional Advocate General also that the petitioner accepted the appointment on daily wage basis after fully understanding the terms and conditions thereof and therefore also, she is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the petition on the ground of estoppel.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended with the petition.

5. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner died in harness while serving as a regular Class-IV employee in the respondent-Department. The petitioner was offered appointment on compassionate basis after the death of her husband, as a Class-IV employee, but on daily wage basis. The appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis was in terms of the policy in vogue at the relevant time of offering the appointment to the kith and kin of the deceased-government employee. The instructions in vogue with regard to the offer of appointment on compassionate basis at the time of death of the husband of the petitioner and at the time when the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis were not to the effect that the kith and kin of the deceased-employees Class-IV regular were to be offered appointment on daily wage basis. In light of this fact, as the policy did not provide that the kith and kin of the deceased employee were to be appointed on compassionate basis on daily wage basis, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner could not have been appointed on compassionate basis in the year 2010 on daily wage basis.

6. Presently, the appointment on compassionate basis is governed by a Policy that has been brought into force by the Government on 07.03.2019. The office memorandum, in terms whereof this Policy was brought into force, reads as under:-

“OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Policy for providing 'Compassionate Employment' and delegation of Powers to department(s) for disposal of cases of compassionate appointments.

1. The 'Compassionate Employment Policy' of the Government was framed/circulated by the Department of Personnel vide its OFFICE MEMORANDUM No. Per. (AP-II)-F-(4)-4/89 dated 18.01.1990 & subsequent amendments were made thereunder, from time to time. A "Revised Policy for providing 'Compassionate Employment and also delegation of Powers to department(s) for disposal" as at ANNEXURE-A is enclosed herewith for information and strict compliance of all concerned.

2. All the pending & new compassionate appointment cases may be regulated as