Vishal Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula, And Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.:— The petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate grounds having been rejected by the Haryana State Electricity Board, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner's father was working as a lineman with the respondent-Board. On 22 November 1982, he was electrocuted and died. The petitioner's mother was appointed as clerk. On 8 November 1983, she died of a heart-attack. At that time, the petitioner was only seven years old. The petitioner and his young sister survived these calamities. He passed his Matriculation examination in July 1994. On 2 August 1994, he submitted an application to the Board for appointment as a clerk. He submitted another representation on 25 October 1994. No reply having been received, he has approached this Court through the present petition.

3. The respondents contest the petitioner's claim on the ground that the request has been made after a period of 11 years which is highly belated and suffers from laches. According to the respondents, the Board had fixed a time limit of one year within which the dependent of a deceased could seek the facility of employment under the ex gratia scheme vide its order, dated 26 September 1985. Thereafter, it was provided that in case of a widow with minor children, the period of one year may be extended to three years provided a request for employment has been made within a period of one year from the date of the death of the employee. Since, petitioner's request was received in August 1994, it cannot now be entertained.

4. We have heard Smt. Daya Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.I Sharma, for the respondent-Board.

5. The relevant portion of the instructions issued by the Board vide its letter, dated 1 October 1986 reads as under:

“That while as per instructions the time limit, within which the dependent of the deceased is to be provided employment has been fixed as one year, in the case of widow with minor children, the above period of one year may be extended to three years provided a request for providing employment is made to the Board within a period of one year of the death of the employee.”

6. A perusal of the above shows that time limit has been prescribed within which the widow can submit an application for providing employment to the Board. However, so far as the minor children are concerned, no limitation whatsoever has been prescribed. In the absence of a specific provision laying down a period of limitation, it cannot be said that the application submitted by the petitioner was time-barred. Still further, the petitioner's Matriculation certificate is on record as Annexure P 3. It is clear that he was born on 8 October 1976. On 8 November 1983 when his mother expired, he was little over seven years of age. He attained majority only in October, 1994. He submitted his application soon after passing the Matriculation examination. Prior to that, there was no one who could have submitted the application. The petitioner was not even eligible to be appointed. In this situation, the plea raised on behalf of die respondents cannot be accepted.

7. Sri Sharma, counsel for the respondents' submitted that a similar claim had been rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal v. Haryana State Electricity Board [Civil Writ Petition No. 13902 of 1994]. A copy of the order passed by the Bench has been produced as Annexure R 2 with the written statement. On a perusal of this order, we find that the petitioner in that case had attained majority in the year 1988 and waited for more than five years before approaching the Court. Such is not the position in the present case. Consequently, the respondents can derive no advantage from this decision. Learned counsel also referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [1994-II L.L.N 420]. It was held that compassionate employment could not be claimed as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV. It was further held that the instructions of the Government did not provide for employment in Class II post. According to their Lordships, “the only ground which can justify compassionate employment is tie penurious condition of the deceased's family.” Whose condition could be more penurious than that of an orphan? The petitioner amply satisfies the test laid down by the Apex Court. He is not guilty of any delay. The plea of laches is wholly untenable. It is, consequently, rejected.

8. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's claim for appointment on the basis that his application was not belated. In the circumstances of the case we resist from awarding any costs to the petitioner.

9. Sd/- Kumararn, J.