'Disregard To Human Dignity', High Court Slams Haryana Authority For Delay In Ex-Gratia Appointment, Orders ₹7.5 Lakh Compensation & Interest

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly criticized the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) for exhibiting “disregard to human dignity” and “administrative apathy” in denying a legitimate ex gratia appointment to the dependent of a disabled employee for over two decades.Justice Harpreet Brar said, "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."The petitioner is now about 47 years old, far beyond the age to be eligible for government service, and much closer to the age of retirement.Therefore, it opined that he deserves to be compensated for the utter disregard to human dignity displayed by concerned department.The UHBVNL authority was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.7.50 lakhs to the petitioner with an interest at the rate of 6% p.a., calculable from the date of filing of this petition i.e. 25.09.2017 till its actual realization, within a period of 02 months.The petitioner's father, Balraj Singh, joined UHBVNL as an Assistant Lineman in 1977. In June 1999, he sustained a severe electric shock while repairing a light pole, leaving him 100% disabled. Following the accident, the authorities offered him two options — to continue in service till superannuation or to retire on medical grounds, with an assurance that his son (the petitioner) would be appointed in his place under the ex gratia employment scheme.Relying on this assurance, Singh opted for retirement in 2001, and the petitioner's case was forwarded for consideration. However, his claim was later rejected in March 2004 on the ground that the new policy of 2003 — which had repealed earlier schemes — did not provide for employment to dependents of employees retiring on medical grounds.Despite multiple representations, including one addressed to the Chief Minister of Haryana, the authorities maintained their stand and again rejected the request in October 2015, leading to the present writ petition filed in 2017.The petitioner argued that the ex gratia policy in force at the time of his father's accident and retirement (1999–2001) — specifically the policies dated 23.11.1992 and 31.08.1995 — clearly allowed for appointment of dependents of employees rendered disabled during service.He contended that the subsequent policy dated 31.03.2003, adopted later by the Nigam, could not retrospectively take away his accrued right. Further, the respondents were bound by the principle of promissory estoppel, as the father's retirement was based on a clear assurance of employment to his dependent son.The State and UHBVNL argued that the petition suffered from delay and laches, as the rejection dated back to 2004. They further submitted that under the 2003 ex gratia policy, which superseded all earlier schemes, there was no provision for providing employment to dependents of medically retired employees.The Court rejected the respondents authorities' arguments, holding that the case was governed by the policies prevailing at the time of the accident and retirement, not by the subsequent one.Referring to Supreme Court precedents, including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi and Indian Bank v. Promila, the Court reiterated that compassionate appointment claims must be decided on the basis of the policy in force at the time of death or disability, not under later amendments.Justice Brar observed that had the authorities processed the petitioner's application promptly, he would have secured the job two decades ago. Instead, due to the department's “mechanical and insensitive” handling, he was denied employment and left without livelihood support.Constitutional Philosophy Priotises Human DignityThe Court said that, constitutional philosophy prioritises human dignity above all else and the State as well as its instrumentalities are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that aligns with the same. In that vein, the administrative machinery must function as the custodian of public welfare, guided by the basic constitutional promise of dignity, fairness, and responsive governance."However, this Court is constrained to note that administrative authorities often display persistent and unwarranted apathy and insensitivity, highlighted by the lack of compassion when dealing with the employees, pensioners and the marginalised, who require time-sensitive relief. When officials mechanically dispose of representations, delay decisions, ignore judicial orders, or raise pedantic objections, they fail to recognise the urgent human needs of citizens," the Court added.It further said that, "the indifference manifests itself as disregard for human exigencies and adopting a hyper-technical...

'Disregard To Human Dignity', High Court Slams Haryana Authority For Delay In Ex-Gratia Appointment, Orders ₹7.5 Lakh Compensation & Interest

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags