Ved Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds due to death of his father-Late Shri Ram Sarup.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner late Shri Ram Sarup was working in the Haryana Roadways Depot at Sirsa as Gunman. While in Service, father of the petitioner had died on 23.09.1991. Accordingly, petitioner had applied for appointment under Ex Gratia Scheme in place of his deceased father. The said application was forwarded by the respondent-Department vide letter No. 1284 dated 11.08.1992; pursuant to which Petitioner was issued Appointment Letter dated 05.07.1994 (Annexure P-2) on the post of Clerk in Labour Department, Haryana. However, when the petitioner went to join his duties, he was informed that his appointment had been made due to some mistake. It is contended that at that time, officials of the Office of the Labour Commission, Haryana had also got signatures of the petitioner on some blank papers on the pretext that the same were necessary for re-examination of case.

Ld. Counsel submits that thereafter, petitioner has been approaching the respondents for his appointment but all in vain.

Subsequently, the Health Minister vide letter dated 05.12.1995 (Annexure P-3) had requested the Chief Secretary that necessary orders may be passed for giving appointment to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, petitioner was informed vide letter dated 27.01.1998 (Annexure P-4) issued by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sirsa that instructions of Government had been received and in case petitioner is interested for Ex Gratia appointment, he shall send application within 3 days. Accordingly, petitioner had submitted application dated 11.02.1998 (Annexure P-5) through his mother Smt. Shanti Devi requesting for Ex Gratia appointment. The said application of the petitioner was duly forwarded by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sirsa to the Transport Commissioner, Haryana vide letter dated 27.01.1999 (Annexure P-6) informing that mother of the petitioner, Smt. Shanti Devi has represented that petitioner had been appointed as Clerk in the Labour Department, Haryana under the Ex Gratia Scheme; however, the same was not accepted due to some misrepresentation. As such, it was again requested that petitioner be appointed as Clerk in the office of Labour Department, Haryana.

Learned counsel submits that thereafter, petitioner had represented many times to the respondents vide letter dated 13.11.1999 (Annexure P-7), and legal notice dated 11.02.2001 (Annexure P-8) claiming Ex Gratia appointment as Clerk. However, vide the impugned order dated 07.06.2001 (Annexure P-9), Labour Commissioner has rejected the legal notice after due consideration. Learned counsel submits that the impugned action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as principles of natural justice, as a result of which, petitioner had suffered manifest and grave injustice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner has applied for appointment within time and his case was considered and sanction was granted to appoint him and accordingly the Appointment Letter dated 5.7.1994 (Annexure P-2) was issued appointing the petitioner in Labour Department but as already stated above he was not allowed to join and thereafter the petitioner and his mother are approaching the officials of the respondents from pillar to post for getting the above said appointment but in vain.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the family of the petitioner is very poor family and have no other source of income and are already under heavy debts which they have obtained on the hope that they will get the appointment as the petitioner was given assurance, from time to time, that the petitioner will be appointed and as such rejecting the case of the petitioner without any legal justification is not warranted by law.

He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post under Ex Gratia Scheme of the Government of Haryana in place of his deceased father by quashing the letter dated 7.6.2001, (Annexure P-9).

Per contra, learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and pointed out that vide letter dated 05.07.1994 (Annexure R-3), Labour Commissioner, Haryana had duly offered appointment to the petitioner on the post of Clerk. However, petitioner had failed to join; and had shown interest and willingness to join only after 5 years. Accordingly, there was no infirmity in the impugned order. Moreover, compassionate appointment is not a vested right. She accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.

It is not disputed that in pursuance to the application of the petitioner for ex gratia appointment, petitioner had been appointed on the post of Clerk in Labour Department, Haryana vide letter dated 05.07.1994 (Annexure P-2/Annexure R-3). A perusal of the said letter shows that it is clearly stipulated therein that petitioner is required to join the office of the Labour Department within 15 days of the receipt of this letter. The relevant extract of the said letter reads as follows: -

Admittedly, petitioner failed to join in pursuance to the aforesaid letter.

It is the case of the petitioner that when petitioner had gone to join in pursuance to the Appointment Letter dated 05.07.1994 (Annexure P-2), petitioner had been verbally informed that his appointment has been made due to some mistake and that his signatures had been taken on some blank papers. However, there is nothing whatsoever on record to substantiate the said allegation/submission of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced nothing to show that petitioner had gone to join after 5.7.1994. Said contention of the petitioner is also very vague as even the date on which petitioner had allegedly gone to join, is not mentioned. On the other hand, it is not disputed that post of Clerk was duly sanctioned by the respondent-Government, and the petitioner was informed of the same vide letter dated 05.12.1994 (Annexure P-2/B).

Notwithstanding the above facts, it is also not disputed that petitioner had thereafter been informed vide letter dated 27.01.1998 (Annexure P-4) that in case petitioner is interested, he shall send application for Ex Gratia appointment “within 3 days”. However, in response to the same, petitioner had approached the respondents 15 days thereafter vide letter dated 11.02.1998 (Annexure P-5). Clearly therefore, petitioner had again failed to approach the respondents within the stipulated period.

Even otherwise in respect of the said letter dated 27.1.1998, the respondents in their additional Affidavit dated 18.11.2025 have clarified as follows: -

It may be pointed out that notwithstanding the aforesaid erroneous offer made to the petitioner through his mother, the respondents had duly considered request of the petitioner upto the highest authorities. In this regard, averments made in para 4 and 5 of the said additional Affidavit dated 18.11.2025 are relevant, which read as follows: -

Admittedly, petitioner has not challenged order dated 16.09.1999 (Annexure R-9) issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana declining the request of the petitioner.

From the above facts, it is clear that petitioner has been offered ex gratia appointment at least twice, and both times petitioner has failed to respond within the stipulated time. As the petitioner had failed to join, no right subsists in favour of the petitioner.

Even otherwise, it is no longer res integra that compassionate appointment is not a vested right. The present case is squarely covered by a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2149428, wherein it is held that: –

The above view has been followed by this Court in Pinki Devi v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana): Law Finder Doc Id # 2859118; wherein it is held that: –

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or dispute the above said factual and legal position. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.