Sunil Kumar vs H.P.S.E.B. and Another

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner''s father died in harness on 09.04.1989. Petitioner was 3-4 years'' old at that time. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature for appointment on compassionate basis immediately after attaining the age of majority, i.e., 20.04.2004. He was offered appointment as Clerk-Cum-M.L.C. on 20.02.2006 on daily wage basis, pursuant to which, he joined his duties on 01.03.2006.

Mr. R.S. Thakur, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the case of his client was required to be considered as per the old norms dated 19.06.1990 and not as per letter dated 12.09.2005. He further argued that as per old norms, Petitioner was required to be offered regular appointment instead of daily waged appointment.

Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned Counsel for the Respondents has vehemently argued that the case of Petitioner has rightly been considered as per the changed norms notified on 12.09.2005.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

Petitioner has lost his father on 09.04.1989. He was minor at that time. He attained the age of majority on 20.04.2004. However, his case was not processed expeditiously and he was offered appointment, that too, on daily wage basis as Clerk-Cum-MLC on 20.02.2006. Case of the Petitioner was required to be considered as per the norms dated 19.06.1990 by offering him appointment on regular basis. The norms have come into existence after the Petitioner has attained the age of majority. The letter dated 12.09.2005, whereby new norms have been prescribed for filling up the posts on compassionate basis only by offering appointment on daily wage basis will apply prospectively. The relevant date for considering the candidature of Petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis was the date on which he attained the age of majority, i.e., 20.04.2004, as per the norms laid down in office memorandum dated 19.06.1990. Petitioner has also made a representation for considering his candidature on regular basis as per Annexure A6, but the same has not been decided till date.

Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned Counsel for the Respondents has also argued that there is delay and laches involved in this case. There is no merit in this contention. The Petitioner has immediately applied for compassionate appointment after attaining the age of majority. Mr. Shirshoo has also argued that Petitioner''s mother has never applied for appointment on compassionate basis. This also merits rejection. Case of the Petitioner was to be considered independently since his mother has not staked her claim for appointment on compassionate basis.

Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to appoint the Petitioner on regular basis as Clerk-Cum-MLC w.e.f. 20.02.2006 with all consequential benefits. No costs.