AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner's father was working as Assistant Line Man in the Respondent-Board. He died in harness on 07.10.2004. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature for appointment on compassionate basis in the month of October, 2004. Initially, his case was considered for appointment to the post of Helper (Sub-Station) on 17.02.2006, pursuant to which, he joined his duties on 22.02.2006. He made an appeal to the Respondents for considering his case for regular appointment as Clerk/MLC/Meter Reader on 09.10.2006, however, vide office order dated 11.12.2006, he was offered appointment as Clerk/MLC/Meter Reader on daily wage basis.
Mr. R.S. Thakur, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued that the case of his client was required to be considered for regular appointment as Clerk/MLC/Meter Reader as per notification dated 19.06.1990 duly adopted by the Respondent-Board.
Mr. R.R. Rahi, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned Counsel for the Respondents, has vehemently argued that the case of Petitioner was required to be considered as per the amendment carried out on 6th October, 2005 vide Annexure A-2, whereby a decision was taken to offer appointment on compassionate basis only on daily wage basis.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.
Petitioner's father has died on 07.10.2004. He submitted an application for considering his candidature for appointment on compassionate basis in October, 2004. His case was required to be considered as per the then existing notification dated 19.06.1990 for appointment on regular basis. The amendment has been carried out only on 6th October, 2005, whereby a decision has been taken to offer compassionate appointment on daily wage basis. The office memorandum dated 06.10.2005 will apply prospectively and will not apply in those cases where the death of bread-earner has occurred before this date. Petitioner's rights have been crystalised on the basis of notification dated 19.06.1990, according to which, he was to be considered for regular appointment. The Respondent-Board has initially, as noticed above, offered appointment to the Petitioner as Helper (Sub Station), but subsequently he has been given appointment to the post of Clerk/MLC/Meter Reader on 11.12.2006 on daily wage basis.
Mr. R.R. Rahi, learned vice counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that since the Petitioner has already joined his duties on 22.02.2006, he is precluded from seeking regular appointment. Petitioner has a legal right to be considered as per notification dated 19.06.1990 and the same will not be defeated only on the ground that the Petitioner has joined his duties on 22.02.2006. Petitioner has already lost his father on 07.10.2004 and was in dire need of job. It is in these circumstances that he has joined his duties on 22.02.2006 as Helper (Sub Station). It is not the case of Respondents that the Petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Clerk / MLC/Meter Reader, rather, Respondents itself issued the appointment letter to the Petitioner as Clerk/MLC/Meter Reader, though on daily wage basis on 11.12.2006.
Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to appoint the Petitioner as Clerk/MLC/Meter Reader on regular basis from 11.12.2006 with all consequential benefits, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the Petitioner. No costs.