Regular Second Appeal No. 1697 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1697 of 2010 Date of decision : May 12, 2011 Rahul Grover ....Appellant versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Rakesh K. Nagpal, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Amit Goyal, AAG, Haryana for the respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Rahul Grover plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. Mother of the plaintiff-appellant was employed as JBT teacher in Government Primary School. She unfortunately died on 25.12.2004 while in harness. The plaintiff applied for compassionate appointment on the death of his mother. Post of Clerk was created for this purpose but the appointment letter was not issued. The plaintiff in the suit claimed either compassionate appointment as Clerk or ex-gratia financial assistance of Rs 5 lacs. The defendants while admitting factual position controverted Regular Second Appeal No. 1697 of 2010 -2- the plaintiff's claim. It was alleged that plaintiff himself moved application for ex-gratia financial assistance of Rs 2.5 lacs and the said application was forwarded to the higher authority. Accordingly the plaintiff is estopped either from claiming higher amount of assistance or from claiming compassionate appointment. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad vide judgment and decree dated 29.1.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit for financial assistance of Rs 5 lacs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been partly allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad vide judgment and decree dated 4.2.2010 and thereby plaintiff's suit has been decreed for financial assistance of Rs 2.5 lacs whereas rate of interest has been enhanced to 12% per annum from the date of institution of suit till recovery. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The sole controversy to be adjudicated upon in the instant second appeal is as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to financial assistance of Rs 5 lacs as claimed by him or financial assistance of Rs 2.5 lacs as granted by the lower appellate court. According to Rules of 2003 on the subject the plaintiff could seek either compassionate appointment or financial assistance of Rs 2.5 lacs. The said Rules were in force when plaintiff's mother died on Regular Second Appeal No. 1697 of 2010 -3- 25.12.2004. Subsequently, Rules of 2005 came into force on 18.11.2005. According to these Rules, financial assistance was enhanced to Rs 5 lacs. Thereafter Rules of 2006 came into force which provided for graded scale of financial assistance payable monthly. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that since case of the plaintiff was pending when the Rules of 2005 came into force, the plaintiff is entitled to financial assistance of Rs 5 lacs. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that Rules of 2003 were in force when plaintiff's mother died and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to financial assistance of Rs 2.5 lacs only as permissible under the said Rules. It was also contended that as per Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sheela Devi versus State of Haryana and others, 2008(4) S.C.T. 475, placing reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as judgments of other Division Benches of this Court, it was held that policy which is in force at the time of death of the deceased employee is to be taken into consideration while deciding the claim of dependent for compassionate appointment or financial assistance. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. In view of authoritative pronouncement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sheela Devi (supra), Rules which were in force at the time of death of plaintiff's mother would be applicable and according to said Rules of 2003, the plaintiff is entitled to financial assistance of Rs 2.5 lacs only as granted by the lower appellate court. The plaintiff is not entitled to financial assistance of Rs 5 lacs as stipulated in Rules of 2005. Regular Second Appeal No. 1697 of 2010 -4- Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that according to Rule 6 of the Rules of 2006, even pending cases are covered by Rules of 2006 although families of the deceased employees have option to opt for lump-sum ex-gratia grant provided in Rules 2003 or Rules 2005 as the case may be in lieu of monthly financial assistance as stipulated in Rules 2006. However, this contention also does not help the appellant because according to the aforesaid Rules, the plaintiff could either opt for assistance under Rules 2003 which were applicable when the plaintiff's mother died or he could opt for assistance under Rules 2006. In either event the plaintiff could not opt for Rules 2005 stipulating assistance of Rs 5 lacs. The said Rules could not be made applicable to the case of the plaintiff under any circumstance. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Plaintiff has been rightly granted financial assistance of Rs 2.5 lacs in accordance with Rules 2003 as applicable at the time of death of plaintiff's mother. There is, therefore, no infirmity much less illegality or perversity in the judgment of the lower appellate court so as to warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) May 12, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'