IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: 17.03.2026.

Santosh Devi ....Petitioner.

VERSUS Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ....Respondents.

***

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR ---

Present: Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Poonia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Dhanda, Advocate, Mr. Yudhveer Hooda, Advocate and Mr. Dharampal Saini, Advocate for the respondents.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

The present petition has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure P-12), vide which the claim of the petitioner for appointment of her son under ex-gratia has been denied and she has been ordered to submit the option for lump-sum cash assistance for Rs.2.5 Lakh only. The petitioner is further seeking direction to the respondents to appoint her son as the dependents of those, whose husband/ father expired after the petitioner’s husband, have been given appointment by superseding the seniority list.

CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that Braham Prakash, the late husband of the petitioner, was working as an Assistant Lineman in the respondent-Nigam and he expired on 10.05.2005 while on duty. The petitioner submitted an application for appointment of her son Sandeep Kumar, who was 10+2 pass. The Executive Engineer, City Operation Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Rohtak, recommended the case of the petitioner’s son for appointment as Clerk, as is found discernible from letter dated 18.11.2005 (Annexure P-3).

When the husband of the petitioner expired on 10.05.2005, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules', 2003 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 2003’), were applicable. Some amendments were also made in Rules of 2003, vide Notification dated 10.02.2004, as is discernible from Annexures P-4 and P-5. In terms of the Rules of 2003, applicable at the time of death of the late husband of the petitioner, the compassionate appointment was to be made one step below to the post on which the deceased government employee was working and the name of the son of the petitioner for appointment was to remain in the list till 09.05.2008. The Managing Director of the respondent- Nigam wrote to the Executive Engineer/City, Rohtak, to obtain the original certificates of the qualification of the son of the petitioner along with affidavit from the petitioner to the effect that she is unmarried and will not remarry and an affidavit from Sandeep Kumar that he will look after the family of the deceased along with the status/income of other dependents. A copy of the said letter is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-7. In compliance of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner submitted the affidavit and completed all the formalities, submitting the requisite documents well within time without any delay on her part. The petitioner was expecting that her son would be given appointment under Rules of 2003, but the Managing Director of respondent- Nigam, on 23.11.2006, ordered the concerned Executive Engineer to obtain option from the petitioner for financial assistance, as is discernible from letter dated 23.11.2006 (Annexure P-8).

Thereafter, the State Government again notified The Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Departments of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 2006’), Annexure P-9, under which the family of the deceased employee has been provided monthly financial assistance instead of ex-gratia compassionate appointment. The petitioner requested the respondents to give appointment to her son under Rules of 2003 and also submitted that at the time of death of her husband, Rules of 2003, were applicable and the name of the dependent of the deceased employee was to be retained in the list for three years, which was further