IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 28.10.2025 Pronounced on:31.10.2025 Pankaj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Surender Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Kumar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Keshav Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J.

1. The present petition is preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 05.03.2004 (Annexure P-13) and 08.10.2015 (Annexure P-16) passed by respondent No.3 vide which the claim of the mother of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner in lieu of disability and retirement of her husband was rejected.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The father of the petitioner- Balraj Singh joined the service of respondent-UHBVNL on 06.04.1977 as an Assistant Lineman in Kaithal. On 02.06.1999, the father of the petitioner was repairing a light point on a 25 feet long pole after switching off the main line. However, someone from the department switched on the main line which resulted in him falling on the ground due to the electric shock. He was examined by the Board of Doctors, PGI, Rohtak, which came to the conclusion that the father of the petitioner is 100% disabled. A disability certificate dated 06.09.2000 (Annexure P-1) was also issued in this regard. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner was also issued a Disability Certificate dated 11.10.2000 (Annexure P-2) from the office of Civil Surgeon, Sonepat.

3. Vide letter dated 20.03.2001 (Annexure P-3), the father of the petitioner was given two options, either to continue in service with respondent-UHBVNL till the age of superannuation or to seek retirement on medical grounds with the assurance that the case of his son i.e. the petitioner would be considered for appointment in his place. The father of the petitioner chose the latter and vide letter dated 31.07.2001 (Annexure P-4), he was intimated that he shall be retired on medical grounds and the petitioner would be granted employment under ex-gratia scheme. Accordingly, he was retired from service w.e.f. 06.09.2000 vide order dated 06.08.2001 (Annexure P-5). The case of the petitioner for grant of employment under ex-gratia scheme prevalent at the time i.e. policies dated 23.11.1992 and 31.08.1995, was forwarded to respondent No.6-XEN to respondent No.5-Superintending Engineer (OP). However, the policy dated 23.11.1992 that allowed for recruitment of a dependent of an employee who was disabled during his service period, was withdrawn by respondent No.1 vide letter dated

20.03.2006 (Annexure P-7 colly).

4. Ultimately, the case of the petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 05.03.2004 (Annexure P-13) as he was found ineligible in terms of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, which contains no provision for providing employment to the dependents of an employee who retired on medical grounds due to a disability. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner also sent a clarificatory letter dated 17.07.2004 to the respondent-UHBVNL and a representation dated 14.05.2015 (Annexure P-15/T) to the Chief Minister, Haryana. The representation was forwarded to the department concerned and was rejected by respondent No.3-Managing Director, UHBVNL on the ground that there is no provision to provide employment in the present case.

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the time of the accident suffered by the father of the petitioner as well as on the date of his retirement i.e. 06.09.2000, policy dated 31.08.1995 (Annexure P-8) was also applicable. Clause 5 of the said policy provides for ex-gratia appointment to the dependents of disabled employees who were declared medically unfit/blind/incapacitated by the Special Medical Board and retired on or befor