Premo Devi And ANR v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.08.2017 Premo Devi and another ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

Present:

Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) The petitioners seek direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds to petitioner no. 2 and to consider the claim of the petitioners for financial assistance under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased government Employees Rules, 2006.

It is the case of the petitioner that Sh. Mahavir Singh, husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2 was working as Assistant Linesman in the office of Sub Division City Gharaunda, District Panipat. He died on 31.10.2003 due to electrocution while discharging his official duties. An application was filed on 18.03.2004 alongwith the affidavit (Annexure P-2 colly) for reserving one post on compassionate appointment under the ex-gratia scheme with the respondent-Nigam for petitioner no. 2, who was only 14 years of age at that point of time. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents have not taken any action on the application and have kept it pending in spite of the fact that petitioner no. 2 has become

major. Reference is made to correspondence inter se the officials of the respondents to submit that no decision has been taken and documents were asked for on 22.07.2008 (Annexure P-3). It is further submitted that on 27.04.2016 (Annexure P-9), confirmation was sought by respondent no. 2 from respondent no. 3 regarding the actual date of submission of documents by petitioner no. 1. Reference is also made to the confirmation sent on 23.06.2017 (Annexure P-12) by respondent no. 3 that the affidavit and the representation had been given on 18.03.2004 and the said documents have been supplied to respondent no. 2. Counsel submits that he will be satisfied if respondent no. 2 takes a decision on his application for appointment under the relevant Rules within a time bound frame.

Keeping in view the limited controversy, this Court does not feel it necessary to call upon the respondents to file reply as it would only further delay the matter and no useful purpose would be served at this stage. Without commenting on the merits of the case or the entitlement of the petitioners for the abovesaid relief and keeping in view the fact that the matter is still pending consideration, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2 to take a decision on the application dated 18.03.2004 (Annexure P-2 colly) within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Needless to say if the benefit is to be declined, a reasoned order be passed and the same be conveyed to the petitioners.

29.08.2017 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No