Ramesh Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others








 

 

  

















 !

"#
$$

%&
'%




 & 
(


  
 &


 %#
) *
% $
&
+
&$

 $
,,,,
 

 
 


  


 
+
&$

 -
$
. */

  
!


 



"#

 

$%&'(&$'

)

 **+ 
, 

-
# 
 !
. )
!




!

.


 
  
 

)
/ 


 #



)
)

0 




!
 #





.
. 1

2
.

* !
 
$&&'$345
)#
#  # 

6 

$7&'(&&(
 



..
!
# 
 
8!


 9
#)!

"#




  
! !



!
:#!
8

 9

!
 #
;

!
.
/ 
)

*  !



 

((&%(&&4



  

. 

) 
<+-*'(7=

(&$&
.

)  


+# 
. 
.

!

 

&7&=(&$(
;

 
.

)



0
<$'3=

(&$(
. 
.

!

 


) 
.
  
)
>)
 
2 


+# 



 



#)!

 

 


  
 

!

)
 

 !



 



(&&%
;   


 


 

($&=(&$%
. 
.

 

 

(3&5(&$%

;







 


+-*'(7=

(&$&

* !

!

!





. 
!

)  

+# 



  








)
 

!


 





  
 
 (=&&&&?*

!
 #
)#






 ! !

!
 #
,



notwithstanding the respondents themselves acknowledging entitlement of the petitioner for financial assistance, the said benefit was not given whereupon the petitioner approached this Court yet again vide CWP No.15696 of 2014. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 07.08.2015, whereby the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. The said order was never challenged by the respondents and thus the same attained finality. He contends that thereafter, respondent No.5 wrote a letter dated 16.09.2015 to Smt.

Anguri Devi, but unfortunately, she had already expired on 08.06.2012. However, on receipt of the abovesaid order, the petitioner kept on visiting the office of respondent No.5, but no action was taken. The petitioner was shocked on being informed that an order had been passed on 13.06.2016 declining the claim of the petitioner for employment as well as for financial assistance.



have themselves admitted the claim of the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, wherein a direction had been issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner on merits and thereafter to issue appointment letter. Notwithstanding the same, the respondents have declined the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order. The operative part of the impugned order reads thus:




 
  


  
  
      
 
   

 
   






   

 
  


  
 
!  "#$ %%& 

$ 



  
   


   

    ' ( )  
 
   
$ 
  


  

  
   * 

 
 

   


 
 + ,

$ 

-
  


 
   


 
  ./ #
  

 
   
 
 ! 

 

 

 
 0# '
)
 



  


 1 
#
 
+//.   
 


  

 

  



 

 





 !

"

#$





!

!





%

 



& '



 (    ' ) * + , !

* +   

   

 


  
  +& #
  

 
   
 2 $
 


 
  
  
   3 )
  +&/ 4

  
   

 
$ 
   

  ! 
  
   3 )


# 
5

6

-

,
 
 

 




 

 #

 #!


! 
 )

  
.

)
 

0 









! 



.


 
)



 

!



 
)

.

 
##)
 

!#
 
)

)


; 
.


  
)

+# 


!






  
.




!

!

. 



)
#
)
@#  





  


!!
  


. 



(&(=



 
=%
 






!









(&&(


.

#

)
%&
 



.
#

)


!
#
 

+ 

!



   






)
)

)



.



) 

1

#

 )




!




)
#.

#

.  #


,

) 


# 
  ? #!

+# 








#


!#
  
;
 
. 




 
!


 .+
&$

 /
(




-
$











 

$


 
89

 : ;
9 

 

: ;
9