IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.17105 of 2006 Date of decision: August 11, 2008 Promila and another -----Petitioner Vs. Indian Bank and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. DS Patwalia,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Pal Jagga, Advocate for the respondents. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition has been filed for quashing order dated 30.6.2006 declining the claim for compassionate appointment. Alternatively, prayer has been made for release of ex-gratia benefits and also a part of terminal benefits to the extent of share of mother of the petitioner-husband. 2. In the reply, the stand taken is that as per policy applicable, if income on account of salary or otherwise of the spouse of the deceased was less than 60% of the last drawn gross salary, net of taxes, then only a person is eligible. The petitioner CWP No.17105 of 2006 being ineligible on that ground, he could not be given compassionate appointment. As regards ex-gratia compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment, the petitioner did not submit application for that purpose inspite of being asked to do so. The last date for making applications was three months from the date of death which was extended in the case of the petitioner upto 30.11.2004. The petitioner stated that she was not interested in cash compensation and was only interested in compassionate appointment. As regards terminal benefits, it is stated that as per rules, mother of the employee was also entitled to a share being Class I heir. However, if the petitioner applied for the same with the consent of the said heir, the claim could be considered. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. As regards claim for compassionate appointment, the petitioner having been found to be ineligible, we do not find any ground to interfere with the same. 5. As regards claim of Rs.2 lacs for ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment, we are of the view that the stand of the respondents is too technical. The petitioner had applied for the compassionate appointment and if the said relief was not admissible, compensation payable could have been given. We, accordingly direct the respondents to give the said relief within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2 CWP No.17105 of 2006 6. As regards terminal benefits, we leave it open to the petitioners to make an appropriate application in accordance with the rules with the consent of the mother of the deceased employee. It is also made clear that mother of the deceased employee would herself be at liberty to get the said benefit in accordance with law, if she is so advised. 7. The petition is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 11, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3