HC awards Rs 7.5 lakh relief for denial of ex gratia job

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) for what it termed as 'administrative apathy', while ordering Rs 7.5 lakh compensation with interest to a petitioner for loss of livelihood and mental harassment due to denial of a legitimate expectation in a compassionate appointment case.

“The case at hand is a classic example of the administrative apathy that has resulted in denial of livelihood to a deserving candidate. The petitioner was eligible for ex-gratia appointment in terms of a duly enforced government policy. However, the manner of decision of his claim has not only caused the petitioner a loss of livelihood but also considerable mental harassment due to denial of a legitimate expectation,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted, while directing the UHBVNL to pay Rs 7,50,000 to the petitioner, with 6 per cent annual interest from the date of filing the petition on September 25, 2017, till actual realisation. The amount was directed to be paid within two months.

The case related to the petitioner’s father, who suffered 100 per cent disability in a work-related accident on June 2, 1999, and opted for early retirement on medical grounds. The Bench observed: “Vide letter dated July 31, 2001, it was decided to employ the petitioner under the ex-gratia scheme. However, his claim was ultimately rejected solely on the ground that no provision currently existed under the new policy adopted on June 9, 2003, for appointment of dependents of those employees who had retired for medical reasons owing to a disability.”

Justice Brar held that the reasoning was indefensible. “The ground taken by the respondent is thoroughly untenable. Two schemes of 1992 and 1995 were applicable at the time of the accident as well as the retirement of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner had duly submitted all documents in 2001, yet the decision arrived in 2004 for no fault of the his.”

Referring to the underlying object of compassionate appointments, the court asserted: “It is settled law that cases pertaining to compassionate appointment must be decided with a sense of urgency as the purpose behind granting such benefits is to aid the dependents of the deceased/incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by such death/incapacitation.”

Justice Brar further observed that the petitioner “could have availed the benefit of compassionate appointment in the first attempt itself” had the Nigam acted promptly. Instead, he and his mother “were compelled to run from pillar to post….”

Taking note of the prolonged harassment and loss of livelihood, the court observed: “At this stage, the petitioner is about 47 years old, far beyond the age to be eligible for government service and much closer to the age of retirement. He deserves to be compensated for the utter disregard to human dignity shown by the department.”