Sat Pal vs Haryana State Electricity Board and others

In this petition challenge is to order dated October 24, 1997, Annexure P-4, whereby petitioner''s case for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected being barred by time.

It is not in dispute that father of the petitioner, namely, Hawa Singh was working as Assistant Line Man with the Haryana State Electricity Board and he died on February 5, 1990, while in service . On his death, his widow, Smt. Bhani Devi (mother of the petitioner) made an application to the Board praying for grant of ex-gratia/compassionate appointment to her son, i.e. petitioner. At the time of death of Hawa Singh, petitioner was 11 years old and was not eligible for appointment. Petitioner passed his matriculation examination held in September 1996, and thereafter, he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. As noticed, petitioner''s case has been rejected being barred by time. Counsel has cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Balkar singh v. State of Haryana 1995 (2) R.S.J. 249 to contend that if the applicant is a minor when relation dies while in Government service, he cannot apply for appointment on compassionate grounds being not eligible to apply for Government job. He can only apply for job when he attains majority and becomes eligible for appointment in Government service.

After hearing the counsel and going through the record, we are of the view that petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this petition. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others 1995 I LLJ 798 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period as the very purpose of compassionate appointment as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. Again in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another. 1996 1 LLJ 1066 following the judgment in Umesh Kumar Nagpal''s case (supra), their Lordships reiterated that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family on the sudden death of the earning member, and is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. It cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In view of the law settled by the Supreme Court, the judgment in Balkar Singh''s case (supra) cited by counsel for petitioner is of no help to the case of the petitioner.

Consequently, the writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.