C.R.No.5655 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5655 of 2009. Decided on: September 25, 2009. Smt.Prem Devi .. Petitioner VERSUS Superintending Engineer and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Amit Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 24.08.2009, dismissing her application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, in her suit seeking job on compassionate grounds as per Ex-gratia claim. By virtue of application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiff sought to incorporate an amendment in the plaint to add an alternative prayer for financial assistance to the dependent of the deceased as per the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005. While dismissing the application, the trial Court observed that the ex-gratia scheme existing in the year 1997 was . . . 1 C.R.No.5655 of 2009 different, as such, she can't be permitted to amend the plaint. The trial Court while making the said observations seems to have not taken into consideration the Proviso to Rule 8 of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, laying down in the said repealed/savings Clause that all pending cases where the family exercises the option to receive the financial assistance under the Rules, the calculation of the period of payment would be made from the date of notification of 2005 Rules. Whether the petitioner is entitled to financial assistance is not to be determined at the stage of amendment but if a right appears to have been accrued on the basis of subsequent legislation, the said statutory right can be permitted to be availed of to the plaintiff especially when the right claimed is under a social legislation made for the benefit of the society or the deceased employees or for the benefit of the families of deceased employee. Since no evidence is required to be produced on addition of prayer/relief clause and the matter is to be adjudicated on the basis of statutory rules, the amendment could have been allowed by the trial Court. Counsel for the petitioner has also undertaken that the petitioner does not want to lead any additional evidence in case amendment is allowed and would only try to get benefit of the Rules of 2006. Notice of motion has been issued. On asking of the Court notice has been accepted. . . . 2 C.R.No.5655 of 2009 The revision petition is allowed in limine in peculiar circumstances mentioned hereinabove subject to costs of Rs.200/-. In the interest of justice, it is ordered that the amendment of the plaint will be allowed but the plaintiff will not be entitled to lead any evidence. In case the defendants-respondents desire they may file amended written statement. Costs of Rs.200/- will be paid by the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner to the counsel for the defendants- respondents in the Court below. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE September 25, 2009. rka . . . 3