Civil Writ Petition No.12726 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Smt. Kesar Devi PETITIONER VERSUS Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present:- Shri Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Amit Rana, Advocate for the respondent. MEHTAB S.GILL, J. Petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order Annexure P-7 passed by the respondents in reply to the legal notice dated 20.3.2007 (Annexure P-6) given by the petitioner and further, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lacs along Civil Writ Petition No.12726 of 2007 -2- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on delayed payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner's husband Daya Nand was working as Assistant Line Man (hereinafter referred to as the A.L.M.). with the respondents. Daya Nand expired on 15.7.1996 while in service. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment for her son who was a minor at that time. The same was rejected on 23.4.1997. Petitioner again approached the respondents with a similar prayer which was again rejected on 22.11.2004. Petitioner approached again a third time, the request again was rejected on 10.5.2006. Legal notice Annexure P-6 was given, but the respondent authorities declined to give employment to her son, vide order dated 4.6.2007, who has now turned a major. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition and the annexures attached thereto. The son of the petitioner was 11 years old at the time of his father's death. There was no policy existing for reserving a post for a minor, to be given to him when he turns major. Petitioner was offered to be considered for appointment, but she did not communicate her willingness to the respondents. Vide letter No.Ch-4/Pen/E-3329 dated 23.4.1997 she was again advised to take employment. She did not respond. Respondents have rightly now held that the claim of the petitioner is time barred. Respondents had made an offer to petitioner to take employment but since she was not interested they could not have waited for an Civil Writ Petition No.12726 of 2007 -3- indefinite period. The son of petitioner at the time of offer was a minor aged 11 years. We do not find any merit in the petition. Dismissed. ( MEHTAB S.GILL ) JUDGE ( K.KANNAN ) December 2, 2008 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO