The claim for compassionate appointment must be adjudicated based on the policy framework prevalent at the time of the employee's death, and administrative delays by the State cannot be invoked to deny rightful benefits to the dependents who face sudden financial distress.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure P-16) vide which the claim of the petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment, in lieu of death of his father in harness, has been rejected. Further, a prayer has been made to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment in view of the applicable policy.

CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the deceased employee was married to petitioner No.1 and out of the said wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. The deceased was appointed to the post of Peon on 03.12.1998 with respondent-HVPNL and eventually passed away on 28.12.1998, while in service. Petitioner No.1 moved a representation seeking ex-gratia employment on account of death of her husband which was forwarded to higher authorities vide letter dated 12.02.1999 (Annexure P-2). Pursuant to the same, a letter (Annexure P-4) was issued by the competent authority which raised an objection regarding absence of requisite birth certificate in shape of age experience certificate from the office of the CMO. Since no clear communication was made regarding status of her request, petitioner No.1 moved another representation, responding to which, vide letter dated 20.05.2003 (Annexure P-6), the respondents provided her with a choice between ex-gratia appointment or ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Since petitioner No.1 received neither, she moved yet another representation dated 30.05.2005 (Annexure P-7). The respondents verbally communicated to petitioner No.1 that she is not eligible for ex-gratia employment or any retiral benefits as her deceased husband served the department for under a year. Subsequently, petitioner No.2, who was one year old at the time of the death of the deceased employee, moved an application for ex-gratia appointment on attaining majority, under policy dated 08.05.1995. However, the representations moved by the petitioners were rejected by passing a non-speaking and manifestly illegal order dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure P-16). Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by policy dated 08.05.1995 (Annexure P-3), which provides for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee. Learned counsel submits that the many other similarly situated applicants have been granted compassionate appointment under policy dated 08.05.1995 (Annexure P-3), while the petitioners are being discriminated against in spite of being covered by the said policy. Lastly, learned counsel undertakes to return the amount received by the petitioners during the pendency of the present petition i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- at an interest of 6% p.a. and prays for the case of petitioner No.2 to be considered for compassionate appointment in terms of policy dated 08.05.1995.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that due to bifurcation of HVPN into UHBVL and DHBVNL on 01.07.1999, the case of the petitioners was considered by the DHBVN in the month of October, 1999. The case of the petitioner only came to the knowledge of the HVPN when order dated 07.08.2023 was passed by this Court. Further, while the case of petitioner No.1 was pending consideration, a new ex-gratia policy dated 28.02.2003 (Annexure R-1) was introduced which was adopted by DHBVN vide letter dated 16.05.2003 (Annexure R-3). As the policy dated 16.05.2003 re