RSA No.2806 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2806 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 27, 2011 State of Haryana and another .....Appellants v. Smt.Santosh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.C.Gupta, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr.Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the respondent-caveator. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 28.2.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Rohtak, accepting the appeal filed by respondent- plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 5.6.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rohtak, vide which suit filed by respondent- plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Admitted facts are that husband of respondent-plaintiff, namely, Chander Pal was working as Beldar in Canal Complex with appellant no.2. He was regular employee. His service was regularised RSA No.2806 of 2011(O&M) -2- w.e.f. 8.8.1989. He expired on 13.1.2002 during the course of employment. Respondent-plaintiff being wife of Chander Pal applied for employment on compassionate grounds under Ex-gratia scheme of the State, which was framed in the year 2001 and which was in existence at that time. She was found eligible for appointment under Ex-gratia scheme as per the policy of year 2001, prevalent at that time, hence her case for providing employment under Ex-gratia scheme was duly recommended by Superintending Engineer, Yamuna Water Services Circle, Rohtak, vide letter No.805- 06/5/15-E, dated 26.3.2002, Ex.D4. Her case remained pending and ultimately, request was declined by General Manager, Haryana Irrigation Department, Sector 5, Panchkula, vide letter dated 20.2.2007, Ex.D1, mainly on the ground that thereafter policy was changed and new Rules, i.e., Haryana Compassionate assistance to the dependent of Government employee Rules 2003 came into force and according to the said Rules, appointments could be made only upto 5% of sanctioned posts and hence, her claim for compassionate appointment was declined. Learned first appellate Court after placing reliance upon pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and others 2007(3) RSJ 121 came to the conclusion that as husband of respondent-plaintiff expired when Rules of 2001 were in existence and Rules 2003 were not in existence, hence she is entitled for compassionate appointment as per the Rules, which were in existence in the year 2001. Only point argued by learned counsel for the appellants-State is that the policy was changed before the application of the respondent- plaintiff could be decided and hence, as per the changed policy she is not RSA No.2806 of 2011(O&M) -3- entitled for compassionate appointment. However, the plea cannot be accepted in view of pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Abhishek Kumar's case (supra). In Abhishek Kumar's case (supra) Rules of 2001 as well as of 2003 were considered by Hon'ble Apex Court and it was specifically held that as appellant had sought for appointment on compassionate ground at a point of time when 2003 Rules were not in existence, his case, therefore, was required to be considered in terms of Rules, which were in existence in the year 2001. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:- “5.Appellant herein had sought for appointment on compassionate grounds at a point of time when 2003 Rules were not in existence. His case, therefore, was required to be considered in terms of the Rules which were in existence in the year 2001. Evidently, in the State of Haryana a State-wise list is maintained. In terms of the said list so maintained by the State of Haryana, the appellant was entitled to obtain an appointment on compassionate grounds. He was offered such an appointment by the State. It was the District Magistrate who came on the way and refused to provide for the post.” Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned appellate Court in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Finding recorded by the lower appellate court is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of RSA No.2806 of 2011(O&M) -4- law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 27.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge