G.S. Singhvi, J.@mdashDespite the fact that the Government of Haryana had issued circular letter No. 9054-4GS-70/32231 dated December 22,
1970 ''(Annexure P-1) almost twenty-four years ago for giving employment on compassionate ground to one of the members of the family of a
deceased Government servant and which circular, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been adopted and made applicable to
the service of the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation (respondent No. 2). The petitioner has been denied appointment as a
dependent of the deceased employee Munshi Ram and inaction on the part of respondent No. 2 to give employment to the petitioner as a
dependent of the deceased employee has compelled him to seek redress from this Court by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
2. Respondent No. 2 is public sector undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act. According to the petitioner, it is an instrumentality of the
State of Haryana and this statement of the petitioner has not been controverted by the respondents. Father of the petitioner, Shri Munshi Ram, was
appointed as T.Mate in the service of the respondent-Corporation on 4.2.1974. He died on 27.12.1992, while in service. He is survived by his
widow, three daughters and three sons (including the petitioner). Elder brother of the petitioner, namely Sham Lal is independently employed at
Ambala and according to the petitioner, he is residing separately. Other members of the family were dependent on the deceased Munshi Ram.
3. After the death of Shri Munshi Ram, the petitioner made an application in the prescribed form for being appointed as a dependent of the
deceased employee of respondent No. 2. He filed requisite affidavit and fulfilled all other required conditions. According to the petitioner, although
he and his family had done every thing on their own part as early as in March, 1993, respondent No. 2 has not issued appointment order in favour
of the petitioner in accordance with Ex-gratia Scheme (Annexure P-1). The petitioner has made reference to the fact that one member each from
the family of Jai Singh and Bahadur Singh have been given appointment as dependents of deceased Government servants under the Ex gratia
scheme and has pleaded that he has been subjected to discrimination by sheer inaction on the part of the respondents. He has placed reliance on
an order dated November 9, 1992, passed in C.W.P. No. 6526 of 1992 (Raj Kumari v. State of Haryana and Anr.).
4. No return has been filed by either of the respondents and in the absence of a return, the averments made in the writ petition will have to be
treated as correct.
5. I have heard Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner, Ms. Ritu Bahri, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No. 1,
and Nipun Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
6. On the basis of uncontroverted averments made in the writ petition, it can be said that the petitioner is a dependent of late Munshi Ram and as a
dependent of the deceased employee of the Corporation he has a right to be appointed in the service of the respondent-Corporation. The Ex-
gratia scheme, issued by the Government of Haryana, though administrative in character, confers a valuable right on the dependents of the
deceased Government Servants. Since the respondent- Corporation has adopted this scheme, as contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, similar right can be said to have been conferred in favour of the dependent of the deceased employees of the respondent-Corporation.
Having accepted in principle that the dependent of the deceased employee of Corporation will be given employment, it is not open to the
respondent-Corporation or for that reason to any other public authority to deny the benefit of appointment to the petitioner who is a dependent of
the deceased employee. In Union of India (UOI) Vs. K.P. Joseph and Others, the Supreme Court had laid down that even administrative orders
can confer valuable rights on the persons in whose favour such orders are issued. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority
of India and Others, , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made reference to the decision of U.S. Supreme Court in Vitarelli v. Seaton
(1959) 359 US 535 and have quoted the following observations of Mr. Justice Frankfurter:
An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged.....Accordingly, if dismissal from
employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be
scrupulously observed....This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the
procedural sword shall perish with the sword.
7. In view of these two decisions of the Supreme Court, it can legitimately be said that on the basis of Annexure P-1, a legal right has come to vest
in the petitioner to be appointed as a dependent of the deceased employee.
8. It is indeed unfortunate that the respondent- Corporation has failed to take appropriate measures for giving appointment to the petitioner in
pursuance of the policy Annexure P-1 even after the lapse of a period of more than one year. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have
expressed the necessity of taking expeditious action on the applications filed by the dependent of deceased Government servant for employment
on compassionate �ground. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , as well as in Smt. Phoolwati v. Union of
India and Ors. AIR 1991 SC 459, the Supreme Court lamented on the delays caused in giving employment on dependents of deceased
employees and said:
It can be staled unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The
purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such
appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If
there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.
9. A Division Bench of this Court in Raj Kumari''s case (supra) gave direction to the respondent- Corporation to give appointment to the
petitioner. In my considered view by not giving appointment to the petitioner on a suitable post commensurate with his qualification, respondent-
Corporation has deprived him of his legal right and has discriminated against him without any legal justification.
10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent- Corporation is directed to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post having regard to
the qualification possessed by him. Appropriate order for appointment of the petitioner shall be issued within six weeks of the submission of
certified copy of this order. Having regard to the fact that there has been abnormal delay on the part of respondent No. 2 in giving appointment to
the petitioner, I direct that the appointment of the petitioner shall relate back to the date of this order. Costs made easy.
