C.W.P.No.9726 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9726 of 2007 Date of Decision : 18.03.2008 Suresh Nandal and another .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri Vimal S.Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri O.P.Sharma, Addl.AG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Shri Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioners have invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the communication dated 11.1.2007, Annexure P-4, whereby the ex-gratia compensation to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs has been communicated to be paid to the petitioners. M/s Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) is alleged to be controlled and administered by the officer appointed by the State of Haryana. The administrative and financial control of the respondent-Bank is alleged to be in the hands of the Haryana Government. The father of the petitioner namely Dharam Pal Nandal was working as Senior Accountant in the respondent-Bank. He died on 30.8.2002. Petitioner No.2, wife of the deceased, made a representation on C.W.P.No.9726 of 2007 2 12.9.2002 for appointment of her son petitioner No.1 on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband Dharam Pal. The respondent- bank decided to appoint petitioner No.1 as Clerk, but on the request made by petitioner No.2, respondent-bank kept reserve the post of Junior Accountant for petitioner No.1 keeping in view his educational qualification. Subsequently, on 2.3.2004, again a request was made by the petitioner No.2 for appointment of petitioner No.1 as Clerk on compassionate ground. The Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the `2003 Rules') were framed by the State of Haryana which came into force on 28.2.2003. It is the claim of the petitioners that request made by petitioner No.2 on 2.3.2004 for appointment of petitioner No.1 to the post of Clerk was required to be considered, but the Board of Directors have passed a resolution on 17.4.2006 for grant of ex-gratia compensation to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs to the petitioners. It is alleged that the said resolution is violative of their own Rules which were prevalent at the time when the case of petitioner No.1 was considered and it was decided to appoint petitioner No.1 on compassionate ground. In reply to the writ petition, it has been pointed out that the deceased employee was 57 years and 6 months of age at the time of his death. Though, it was decided to appoint petitioner No.1 as Clerk on 29.10.2002, but such offer was not accepted by the petitioners and in fact, a request was made to reserve a post of Junior Accountant for petitioner No.1. The Board granted one year time to petitioner No.1 for fulfillment of the C.W.P.No.9726 of 2007 3 requisite qualification for the post of Junior Accountant, but the petitioner No.1 failed to obtain the necessary qualification. It is further pointed out that the mother of petitioner No.1 has turned down the offer of appointment of her son on the post of Clerk and on her request, the post of Junior Accountant was kept vacant. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 has not been able to qualify for the post of Junior Accountant. But, in the meantime, 2003 Rules came into force and in terms of such Rules, the petitioner No.1 is not entitled to compassionate appointment as per Rule 3 (d) (iii) of such Rules. Subsequently, in view of the difference of opinion of the members of the Board of Directors, the Financial Commissioner vide communication dated 17.1.2006 directed the Bank to deal with the case of the petitioners for ex- gratia appointment in terms of 2003 Rules. Thereafter, the Board in its meeting held on 17.4.2006, unanimously decided to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs to the petitioners and thus, such decision is in accordance with the Rules. The 2003 Rules were amended on 2.2.2004 whereby in respect of deceased employee who was more than 55 years of age at the time of his death, it was contemplated to grant financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs alone to the dependents of the deceased employee. Such amendment is retrospective i.e., from the date of framing of the Rules w.e.f. 4.3.2003, itself. The amended Rules read as under:- “2. Object of the Rules:- The objects of the rules is to assist the family of a deceased employee in tiding over the emergency situation, resulting from the loss of the bread-earner by giving either of the following options:- xx xx xx C.W.P.No.9726 of 2007 4 (iii) ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family of the deceased Government employees to be paid at the rate of Rs.2.5 lacs, in case where the Government employee dies in harness at the gate of 55 years or thereafter. xx xx xx 4. Option: (1) A dependent of the deceased/missing Government employee shall give in writing his/her preference of option within 3 years from the date of death of the Government employee, for one of the following:- xx xx xx (c) ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family of the deceased Government employee to be paid at the rate of Rs.2.5 lacs in case the Government employee dies in harness at the age of 55 years or thereafter. xx xx xx xx.” In the present case the claim of the petitioner No.1 for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined on 4.5.2006 on the ground that the deceased father of the petitioner No.1 has attained 55 years of age before his death. In respect of such deceased Government employees, 3rd option has been introduced in the aforesaid Rules with retrospective effect i.e., from the date of framing of 2003 Rules, so as to grant ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs. Therefore, in terms of Rule 2 (iii) of the 2003 Rules, as introduced on 10.2.2004, but with effect from 4.3.2003, a Government employee who has attained the age of 55 years or more on the date of his death, is entitled to financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs. In terms of Rule 6 (1) of the Rules, the Head of the Department is to give appointment/financial C.W.P.No.9726 of 2007 5 assistance to the completely dependent indigent member of the family of the deceased employee. In view of the said fact, we do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner No.1 that he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground after the death of his father who was more than 57 years and 6 months of age at the time of his death. The said Rules have been interpreted by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.6005 of 2007, titled as Kuldip Kumar Versus Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another, decided on 12.3.2008, wherein it has been held that the dependents of deceased employee who has attained the age of more than 55 years, are entitled to ex-gratia financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs alone. In view of the reasons recorded therein, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to disburse the amount of Rs.2.5 lacs, as mentioned in the communication Annexure P-2, to the petitioners within a period of one month from today. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 18-03-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE