C.W.P.No.16810 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16810 of 2007 Date of Decision : 18.03.2008. Shiv Kumar and another .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate with Shri H.P.S.Ishar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Narender Hooda, 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? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. In the present case, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint petitioner No1 on any Class-IV post of Peon/Chowkidar/Mate under ex-gratia Scheme. Chandan Singh, father of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 was working as Meter Reader with the Dhakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Nigam), who died on 5.6.2003. After the death of his father, petitioner No.1 sought appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father. However, on 26.9.2006, petitioner No.2, mother of petitioner No1 received a communication from respondent No.2 to seek her option to avail facility of lump sum amount or to seek facility of monthly financial assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the C.W.P.No.16810 of 2007 2 Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the `2006 Rules'). Petitioner No.2 replied to the said letter and sought appointment of her son, petitioner No.1, in lieu of the post held by her husband with the respondent-department. It is the case of petitioner No.1 that he is entitled to compassionate appointment under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the `2003 Rules') as the said Rules were in force on the date of death of his father. As per the Annexure P-3, the name of the petitioner No.1 was at Sr.No.163 of the list of the candidates who have applied for appointment under ex-gratia scheme and who could not be granted appointment under the Policy for appointment upto 31.3.2006. In reply, it has been pointed out that under the new ex-gratia policy i.e., the 2006 Rules, the petitioner was advised to signify his acceptance/option in the enclosed proforma to avail the facility of lump sum amount or to avail the facility of monthly financial assistance. It is also pointed out that validity of such list, maintained for appointment on compassionate ground, expired on 31.3.2006 and the case of the petitioner did not turn up for appointment against prescribed quota. Therefore, option of the mother of the petitioner No1 was sought for release of ex-gratia compensation. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.15304 of 2006, Jagdish Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam and another, decided on 26.2.2008 and in Civil Writ Petition No.13472 of 2006, Union of India versus Tilak Raj and another, C.W.P.No.16810 of 2007 3 decided on 5.12.2007, has considered the various judgments of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that the petitioner has no right to seek appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the instructions applicable on the date of death of deceased employee. The consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right. The object of offering employment on compassionate ground is only to enable the family to get over the financial crises which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner. It was held that it was necessary for the Authority to frame Rules, Regulations or to issue administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the present case, on the date of death of father of petitioner No.1, it was the 2003 Rules which were regulating the appointment on compassionate ground. Such Rules have been substituted by 2006 Rules framed in terms of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In terms of 2006 Rules, the petitioner No.1 cannot be offered appointment on compassionate ground as in terms of 2006 Rules, only financial assistance is permissible. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the communication dated 26.9.2006, Annexure P-1, whereby an option was sought from petitioner No.2 to opt for financial assistance, which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, we grant liberty to the petitioners to submit option for grant of lump sum amount of financial assistance or monthly financial assistance in terms of C.W.P.No.16810 of 2007 4 the 2006 Rules, within one month from today. On receipt of the option from the petitioners, the respondents shall take necessary steps for release of payment of financial assistance to the petitioners within one month thereafter. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 18-03-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE