RSA No.1261 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1261 of 2009. Decided on: October 22, 2009. Sanjay Kumar .. Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of appellant had been decreed by the trial Court holding that he is entitled to a job on compassionate ground in place of deceased Tulsi Ram being his eldest son besides holding that plaintiff-defendant No.4, and minor children of defendant No.4 are entitled to all benefits arising out of death of Tulsi Ram i.e. GPF, GIS, Leave encashment etc. in equal shares. Only defendant No.4 and her minor children were held entitled as per their share to the retiral benefits in an appeal filed by the State of Haryana-respondent on the basis of the policy and rules land regulations of appointment on compassionate ground. It was held that only consideration for the . . . 1 RSA No.1261 of 2009 job is permissible, as such, the order passed by the trial Court was modified clarifying that if petitioner or his step-mother (defendant No.4), are found fit for appointment on compassionate then their claim shall be dealt with in accordance with law and in accordance with relevant scheme applicable at the time of death of deceased. The appellant-defendant No.4, and minor children of the deceased were held to be entitled to disbursement of the retiral benefits. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that defendant-respondent No.4, has admitted that she is not interested in the compassionate appointment, as such, a direction is sought for modification of the order passed by lower appellate Court to the effect that a direction should be given to the respondent to appoint the appellant on compassionate ground. In view of the waiver of the right of respondent No.2, for appointment , it has also been suggested by counsel for the appellant that the matter be sent to the Mediation and Reconciliation Centre for amicable settlement as the appellant himself is not interested in the retiral benefits but is only interested in appointment on compassionate ground. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. In case the appellant is eligible as per the scheme framed by the State for compassionate appointment or any compensation, he would be entitled to the same and on account of waiver of respondent No.2, plaintiff-appellant only will be eligible to seek the benefit of the . . . 2 RSA No.1261 of 2009 scheme framed by the Government for appointment on compassionate ground in case appellant waives his rights in other benefits. No fault can be found in the finding recorded by the lower Court in favour of respondent No.2 and her minor children regarding the disbursement of the retiral benefits. In view of above observations, no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order as no substantial question arises for adjudication. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 22, 2009. rka . . . 3