Regular Second Appeal No.313 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 19, 2010 The Managing Director Sugar Mills, The Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills, Sonepat & another ...Appellants VERSUS Smt.Nirmala ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills, Sonepat has filed this Regular Second Appeal to impugn the judgment passed by the Addl.District Judge, Sonepat reversing the findings given by the trial court and directing the appellants to appoint respondent Smt.Nirmala widow of Azad Singh in terms of the relevant rules governing the appointment on compassionate grounds. Regular Second Appeal No.313 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : Azad Singh was an employee of the appellant Sugar Mill w.e.f.1984. He was earlier on daily wages, but his services were regularised w.e.f. 4.1.2000. He died on 16.3.2002 leaving behind his widow (respondent-plaintiff) and three children. The widow is statedly a handicapped person. Respondent-plaintiff applied for appointment for her son and the release of service benefits of her deceased husband. She was only paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards provident fund. She was not given appointment on compassionate ground, whereupon she filed a suit. The suit was dismissed, against which she filed an appeal before the Ist Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has reversed the findings and had directed the appellants to appoint the respondent-plaintiff on compassionate ground. The appeal has also been allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Co-operative Sugar Mills Employees Rules, 2003 (for short “2003 Rules”) to urge that the deceased employee has been defined to mean a person appointed on a regular basis and not working on daily wages, casual, apprentice, work charges, adhoc, contractual or re- employment basis. He would also refer to a condition that person should have served for at least three years before the case of compassionate appointment could be considered under these Rules. Pointing out that the service of the deceased employee was regularised w.e.f. 4.1.2000, it is stated that the deceased did not serve for three years till the date of his death and, thus, could not be taken as a deceased employee under Rules 2003, referred to above. Regular Second Appeal No.313 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : The Appellate Court, however, noticed that deceased Azad Singh was working on daily wages since 1984, though he was regularised w.e.f. 4.1.2000. As per the Appellate Court, the issue was whether the 2003 Rules would be applicable in this case or the one which were prevalent earlier, i.e., 1991 Rules because concededly Azad Singh, husband of the respondent-plaintiff had died prior to coming into force of 2003 Rules. The Appellate Court found that the case of compassionate appointment of the respondent-plaintiff would be covered by Rule dated 24.4.1991 and not by 2003 or 2005 Rules as was the view taken by the trial court. Counsel for the appellant has placed a copy of the 2003 Rules before me and has pointed out to a para in the covering letter, which says that these Rules shall be applicable to those dependents of the deceased employees of the Cooperative Sugar Mills in Haryana whose cases are pending as on the date of coming into force of these rules. It is further stated that the cases already decided shall not be re-opened. Counsel has not been able to point out any specific provision in the Rule itself which may make the applicability of these rules to be retrospective and, thus, applicable to the pending cases as well. A mention in the covering letter while forwarding the copy of the rules would not make the rule to operate with retrospective effect. The finding of the Appellate Court that there is nothing either in 2003 Rules or 2005 Rules that they will operate retrospectively, thus, is just and legal. These rules can not be applied to the case of the respondent-plaintiff. This view is fair, just and reasonable and would not suffer from any legal infirmity. If the definition of the employee is considered in the light Regular Second Appeal No.313 of 2009 (O&M) : 4 : of 1991 Rules, the service of three years would not be a requirement. This Rule simply says that if any employee dies during the service, one dependent member of the family of the deceased employee will be given employment in the service of the society according to her qualification and suitability for the service in the society. Reference to Rule 18 of 2003 Rules, which repealed the 1991 Rules relating to the definition of job inheritance would also not come to the rescue of the appellant because it would not mean that these are to operate retrospectively. It is a case of compassion. A handicapped respondent- plaintiff has been given appointment on compassionate ground. The husband of the respondent-plaintiff may have had less than three years of regular service, but his service in all was nearly of ten years. It will be too much to expect from a Co-operative Sugar Mill like the appellant first not to regularise services of its employees for number of years and then depend on that fact to deny appointment on compassionate ground. There is no substantial question of law which would arise for consideration in this case. The approach adopted by the Ist Appellate Court is fair and reasonable and would not call for any interference. However, the direction to pay cost of Rs.10,000/-, cannot be sustained. Even the counsel for the respondent says that he would not ask for the costs. The Regular Second Appeal subject to above observations will stand dismissed. January 19, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE