CWP No. 2419 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2419 of 2007 Date of Decision:17-01-2008 Dilbag Singh ....Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Ravi Mattoo, Advocate, for Shri Raghujeet Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has sought quashing of the Rule 19(2) of Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `2005 Rules’), wherein it has been provided that the pending cases to seek compassionate appointments are to be decided in terms of Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (for short `2003 Rules’). Dariya Singh, father of the petitioner, was working as Assistant Lineman with the respondents. He died on 29.6.2001 when on duty. The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground. The name of the CWP No. 2419 of 2007 (2) petitioner was kept in the waiting list, but other terminal benefits were released to the family of the petitioner. On 28.2.2003, the State Government framed 2003 Rules for grant of ex-gratia or financial assistance to the families of the deceased employees. On 31.3.2003, instructions were issued by the State Government that all pending cases will be decided as per new Rules. On 18.11.2005, the State Government framed 2005 Rules. As per Rule 19(2) of the aforesaid Rules, all pending cases were to be decided as per 2003 Rules. Instead of compassionate appointment, the option of the petitioner was sought for financial assistance, on the ground that the turn of the petitioner against 5% quota does not mature. The petitioner submitted the option and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in terms of 2003 Rules read with Rule 19.2, was disbursed to the petitioner. It was thereafter that the petitioner filed the present writ petition to challenge the provisions of Rule 19.2 and to claim compensation of Rs.5 lacs as provided under 2005 Rules. Since the petitioner has received the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- vide Cheque No. 104437 dated 19.09.2006 without any objection, therefore, the petitioner is estopped to claim the compensation in terms of 2005 Rules. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of India and others v. O.P. Swarankar etc. 2003(1) SLR 1, wherein the Scheme for voluntary retirement was sought to be disputed after taking financial benefit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the benefits have been taken under the Scheme, the Scheme cannot be challenged. It was held to the following effect: - ““The scheme is contractual in nature. The contractual right derived by the concerned CWP No. 2419 of 2007 (3) employees, therefore, could be waived. The employees concerned having accepted a part of the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand.” In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is estopped to claim compensation under 2005 Rules, after receiving the amount of compensation. Consequently, we do not find any ground to interfere in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 17-01-2008 jt/ds