IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4789 of 2010 Date of decision: 02.08.2011 Apoorva Sharma .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This petition has been filed by daughter of a lady, who was serving as Music Mistress on adhoc basis in Education Department of Haryana. Prayer of the petitioner is for grant of financial assistance on compassionate ground under the rules formulated by the State. It appears that the petitioner is not well- advised to make the present approach as the facts would show. The mother of the petitioner was initially appointed on ad hoc basis on 08.11.1988. Her services were regularized on 01.01.1991. She was promoted as Lecturer on 17.06.1993. On 17.07.2006, the mother of the petitioner met with fatal accident alongwith some other employees while enroute to consult the District Elementary Education Officer. All the injured were shifted to PGI, Civil Writ Petition No. 4789 of 2010 -2- Rohtak where she was declared as brought dead. Relying on a rule framed by State of Haryana on 01.08.2006, regulating the grant of ex-gratia compassionate assistance to the family members of the deceased employee who dies while in service, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition being daughter. The father of the petitioner, who himself is in the employment had earlier made a request for release of financial assistance. The respondent-State had raised various objections and rightly so, which the father of the petitioner claims to have removed. The claim was rejected on 05.12.2008 on the ground that father of the petitioner is working as Lecturer with the Government College, Jind and as such dependents of the deceased are not entitled to monthly financial assistance. It can be noticed that the father of the petitioner had then approached this Court through CWP No. 4487 of 2009. This writ petition was dismissed on 21.03.2009. Infact, while dismissing the writ petition, this Court had clearly observed that counsel was not able to satisfy as to how the object of these rules viz. 'tiding over the emergent situation resulting from the loss of the bread earner while in regular service' would be met in this case. The prayer that the father of the petitioner would be eligible under clause 3 was also considered and it was held that he would not be entitled to claim benefits under the rules. Counsel representing the father of the petitioner, at that stage, had pointed out that the petitioner therein was entitled to family pension. The Court noticed that there was no such averment made in the writ petition that he had applied for family pension. The liberty was given to the father of the petitioner to make Civil Writ Petition No. 4789 of 2010 -3- an application for grant of family pension. The writ petition, however, was dismissed. Against this, the father of the petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal, which was withdrawn by the counsel after arguing for some time. On request made by the counsel, the Court had observed that this order would not prejudice the children who were dependent on the deceased for making a claim or approaching the Court, if necessary. Taking advantage of this liberty, the petitioner has again approached this Court through present writ petition. I fail to understand as to how the petitioner would be able to tide over the insurmountable difficulties to claim assistance. This provision has been made primarily to provide financial assistance to those, who are in need. It can be noticed that initially Government had issued some instructions for grant of compassionate appointment to those in need once they had lost their bread earner. The need in such cases was dire. On sudden loss of the bread earner, the family may be left without resources to survive. In order to provide help to the family, the provision was made for compassionate appointment. Later, on the basis of view expressed by certain courts including the Apex Court, where the generous grant of compassionate appointment came to be commented upon being a backdoor entry that the State had substituted the policy to come up with the present policy in 2006 to do away with the compassionate appointment and to make a provision for compassionate assistance instead. Obviously, this being a substitution for compassionate appointment, could be so offered only when there is a need for the Civil Writ Petition No. 4789 of 2010 -4- family for the financial assistance to tide over difficult situation arising due to death. How the petitioner can justify her need when the father is earning well and perhaps more than what is stated to be a loss. Family pension and other pensionary benefits perhaps have been allowed already. The plea by the State counsel that it is a mere greed that this petition is filed as shadow litigation by the husband is not without basis. The object of the rules, as is stated in the Rules itself is to assist the family of the deceased employee to tide over the emergent situation resulting from the loss of the bread earner. If that be so, then a person who himself is earning cannot plead emergency to seek assistance. So would be for his or her wards as the family would have another bread earner. Such a situation does not show any emergency to call for help or assistance. A person having sufficient resources and means and earning capacity pleading assistance would more be a case of greed rather than need which in any case has to be emergent. Reliance on Rule 3 of The Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependent of Deceased Government Employee Rules 2006 by the counsel for the petitioner to claim eligibility is totally misplaced. This rule only makes one eligible but not entitled to the assistance. Entitled has to be seen on the basis of rules and the spirit behind the rules. Mere eligibility, which is doubtful, cannot mean that petitioner is entitled to the assistance. The petitioner does not need assistance and there is no need of any compassion in such a case. The compassionate Civil Writ Petition No. 4789 of 2010 -5- appointment or compassionate assistance, which is to be provided monthly is only for those, who are in need. This cannot be taken that those who are not in need should also burden the exchequer and tax payers money. I have also not been able to understand how on the face of the order passed earlier by this Court even testing the argument of eligibility could make the petitioner to approach this Court again. There is no merit in the writ petition. This is a case, which was clearly avoidable. Dismissed. August 02, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE