R.S.A.No. 2172 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2172 of 2008 Date of decision: 11.12.2009 Anil Kumar ......Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Anil Kumar filed a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 13.1.2007. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 25.2.2008. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. That father of the plaintiff was employed as Kanungo in Revenue Department, Government of R.S.A.No. 2172 of 2008 2 Haryana and was posted at Bahadurgarh. He died in harness on 16.5.1999 during service. It has been alleged that his (plaintiff's) mother had intimated the defendants about the death on 1.7.1999 and had also made a request that her minor son Anil Kumar (plaintiff) aged 16 years be considered for appointment to the job in place of his father Satpal Singh, on his attaining majority. It was also alleged by his mother that her son is residing with her and also serves her as well as her family and were dependent upon him and that she has no other income or support except the family pension. However, the defendants did not consider the request. It has been pleaded by the plaintiff that his date of birth is 12.7.1983 and he passed 10+2 class in April, 2004. He made various applications with a request to consider his claim but to no effect. On 15.7.2002 his mother again moved application requesting the defendants for appointment of the plaintiff under the exgratia scheme but still the defendants kept the matter lingering on. The plaintiff then got issued legal notices dated 16.7.2007 and 20.7.2004 under Section 80 CPC upon the defendants but they did not accept to his genuine request. However, the defendants, vide order/memo dated 27.8.2004 intimated the plaintiff through counsel at Hisar that his application R.S.A.No. 2172 of 2008 3 for job in place of his father under the exgratia scheme reached the Director etc. on 29.11.2002, so, in view of the instructions dated 19.11.2001 his claim for job under the exgratia rules has been declined. The plaintiff has challenged the impugned order dated 27.8.2004 on the following grounds:- 1. That his mother made an application to defendants for the job for him on 1.7.99 and subsequently many times. 2. That the defendants did not bother to consider his request and they acted in sluggish manner. He cannot be made sufferer for the sluggishness of the defendants. 3. That if the application made on 15.9.2002 reached the Director Land Records on 29.11.2002 as per the defendants, he cannot be blamed for the lax attitude of the defendants. 4. That as per the rules and instructions it is mandatory that the department ought to have nominated a welfare officer for the purpose but the defendants failed to carry out this job. 5. That he was required to be guided by the department time and again in this regard but the defendants did not take any such step and R.S.A.No. 2172 of 2008 4 violated the rules. Therefore, he cannot be made sufferer for this violation of the rules. 6. That he was required to be heard in person to appreciate facts but no such hearing was ever given to him. The defendants wrongly alleged that his application is not within time. He was required to make the application within six months from the date he attains the age of 17 years, as per instructions dated 3.11.1988 and he did so. 7. That the impugned order is in gross violation of the rules and the principles of natural justice because no notice or opportunity of hearing was ever granted to him. 8. That no rule or instructions can be applied to his disadvantage. It was thus prayed that a decree of declaration to the effect that he is entitled to the job in place of his father under the exgratia scheme thereby declaring the impugned order dated 27.8.2004 to be wrong, illegal and null and void, be passed. 3. The defendants filed joint written statement contesting the suit of the plaintiff. Besides raising certain preliminary objections of locus standi, maintainability, time R.S.A.No. 2172 of 2008 5 barred, jurisdiction etc, it was submitted that according to Haryana Government Gazette Notification dated 28.2.2003 as per rule 8 (F) “where dependent of the deceased Government employee does not become eligible for appointment on any ground within three years of the death of Government employee, he/she shall not be eligible for the exgratia compassionate. It has been averred that the reply to the notice dated 20.7.2004 has been given by the Director of Land Records, Haryana, Chandigarh, vide letter No.54/4 dated 27.8.2004 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the plaintiff is not eligib le for appointment under exgratia scheme vide Haryana Government Directions 16/23/2001-SGS-1 dated 19.11.2001. It has been further alleged that according to instructions No.16/21/88-6, G.S.II and Haryana Government Gazette Rule 8(F), the plaintiff/applicant should have applied and have become eligible for appointment within three years of the death of Haryana Government employee. It was thus prayed that the suit be dismissed.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the job in place of his father under the exgratia scheme and the order R.S.A.No. 2172 of 2008 6 dated 27.8.2004 passed by the defendants declining his claim is totally wrong, illegally, without jurisdiction, against the principle of natural justice, as such not binding on right rights and liable to be set aside, on the grounds as detailed in para No.6 of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether defendants are liable to be directed to provide a job to plaintiff under exgratia appointment scheme with all service benefits on the grounds as stated in plaint? OPP 3. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD 4. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? OPD 7. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the impugned order dated 27.8.2004, whereby, his request for appointment on compassionate basis was declined was illegal. Admittedly, father of the plaintiff was working with the Revenue R.S.A.No. 2172 of 2008 7 Department of the State of Haryana as a Kanungo. He died while in service on 16.5.1999. The factum of death of father of the plaintiff was intimated to the defendants by mother of the plaintiff vide application dated 1.7.1999. At that time, plaintiff was 16 years old. Thereafter, an application was sent by mother of the plaintiff dated 15.7.2002 seeking appointment of the plaintiff in place of his father on compassionate basis. However, the case of the defendants is that an application could only be entertained regarding appointment on compassionate basis if it was made within three years of the death of an employee. But, in the present case, application for employment was made after a period of three years had elapsed from the date of death of Satpal Singh deceased. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE December 11, 2009 anita