IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 13433 of 2004 Date of Decision: February 05, 2008 Parveen Kumar ..........Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...........Respondents 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: Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana. ** RANJIT SINGH J.(oral) The petitioner has filed this writ petition in the nature of Mandamus seeking directions to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate basis. Father of the petitioner, late Sh.Jai Karan Singh, who was working as Headmaster of Government High School, Birohar, District Jhajjar, has expired on 29.12.2002. The petitioner possesses the qualifications of M.A.B.Ed. Mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment for her son through an application dated 15.1.2003. Respondent No.3, District Education Officer, Jhajjar forwarded the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to the Director of Secondary Civil Writ Petition No. 13433 of 2004 { 2 } Education, Haryana (Respondent No.2). When the petitioner did not hear anything, he served a legal notice to respondent No.2 on 23.8.2003. It is pleaded in the notice that the family of the petitioner was facing great financial hardship. On 25.9.2003, respondent No.2 sent the case of the petitioner to respondent No.3 for re- consideration in view of the government instructions which came to be issued on 31.3.2003. Respondent No.3 was directed to re-submit the case of the petitioner in the light of these instructions. The same was re-submitted for grant of compassionate appointment on 28.10.2003. It is pleaded in the letter that the father of the petitioner had expired on 29.12.2002 and, as such, the amended instructions issued on 31.3.2003 would not apply in his case. The petitioner also filed a Civil Writ Petition No.19146 of 2003 impugning the action of the respondent whereby his case was being considered under the newly introduced instructions dated 31.3.2003. This writ petition, however, was got dismissed as withdrawn on 19.12.2003 with liberty to file a fresh petition by giving complete facts and after raising appropriate challenge. The reference is also made to various instructions that are issued by the Government regulating the compassionate appointment for dependents of the persons who died in harness. On 28.2.2003, the Haryana Government framed rules called Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules 2003. These Rules were Civil Writ Petition No. 13433 of 2004 { 3 } promulgated through notification dated 28.2.2003. It is claimed that these Rules have been formulated to help the dependents of the deceased government employees. The grievance is that in reality an attempt was made to exclude the dependents of deceased government employees who died after crossing the age of 55 years. The instructions were also issued on 31.3.2003 providing that the Rules framed on 28.2.2003 would govern the cases of those government employees, which were pending consideration as on the date of coming into force of the said Rules. It has now been provided that ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lacs is to be paid to the deceased government employees, who die in harness at the age of 55 years or thereafter. This is where the petitioner feels aggrieved as he is ousted from consideration in view of the amended Rules now made applicable to all pending cases. Notice of motion in this case was issued and reply has been filed. The stand, which is taken to apply amended Rules to the case of the petitioner, has been reiterated in the reply filed. It is made out that the amended Rules did not require consideration of the case of the petitioner as his father died when he was more than 55 years of age. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Ms.Alka Chatrath, appearing for the petitioner, draws my attention to the case of Abhishek Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (3) RSJ, 121, to urge that the case of the petitioner is to be Civil Writ Petition No. 13433 of 2004 { 4 } governed by Rules, which were prevalent on the date of death of the father of the petitioner and his case can not be governed by the new Rules, which were promulgated in February 2003 and made applicable to the pending cases through instructions issued on 31.3.2003. In Abhishek Kumar's case (supra), similar question arose before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In this case, the father of the appellant-Abhishek Kumar, had expired on 10.2.2001 and he applied for compassionate appointment within two week thereafter. It is noticed that the Rules of 2003 were not in existence at that time. In this background, it is observed that the case of the said appellant, Abhishek Kumar, was required to be considered in terms of the Rules, which were in existence in the year 2001. The clear ratio that would emerge from this judgment is that the case of compassionate appointment is to be governed by those Rules, which were applicable at the time of death of deceased. It is to be noticed that in the present case the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 15.1.2003 immediately after the death of his father on 29.12.2002. Thus on the date of death and date of the application of the petitioner, Rules framed in the year 2003 were not in existence. The case of the petitioner thus would appear to be governed by the ratio of law settled in Abishek Kumar's case (Supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the Devision Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Civil Writ Petition No. 13433 of 2004 { 5 } Santosh Kumari vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (1) RSJ, 397. In this case similar view is taken by this Court to say that the case will be governed by the instructions issued in 1995 and not the Rules of 2003 as the death in harness of the husband of the petitioner was on 14.4.1999. The action of the respondent in considering the case of the petitioner in terms of the newly introduced rules in the year 2003 is not justified. The case of the petitioner is required to be considered in terms of the Rules, which were in existence at the time of death of his father i.e. on 29.12.2002. The petitioner had even applied for compassionate appointment on 15.1.2003 before the rules of 2003 came to be promulgated. Following the ratio of law laid down in the above noted cases, this writ petition is required to be to be disposed of in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The direction, therefore, is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of the Rules that were in existence on the date of death of his father i.e. on 29.12.2002. Respondent-State would do well to consider the case with some urgency so that the financial constrains the petitioner may be facing is looked into. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE February 05, 2008 anita