R.S.A. No.685 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.685 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 1 st APRIL, 2011 The Chairman, UHBVN, Sector-6, Panchkula & others .... Appellants Versus Wazir Chand & another .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J. P. Dhull, Advocate for the respondents. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Defendants are in second appeal. Respondents/plaintiffs Wazir Chand and Rajesh sons of Jai Karan filed suit against the appellants. It is undisputed that plaintiffs' father Jai Karan was serving as Lineman in Haryana State Electricity Board. While in service, he died on 20.12.1994. Family pension was sanctioned to his widow Khazani Devi (mother of the plaintiffs). Khazani Devi also applied to the defendants for reserving one post for plaintiff No.1 Wazir Chand, who was then minor, for compassionate appointment. Subsequently, Khazani Devi also died on 09.10.1997. Thereafter, family pension was also discontinued. Plaintiffs in the suit sought grant of family pension and also compassionate appointment for plaintiff No.1. Defendants claimed that family pension was stopped as per service R.S.A. No.685 of 2010 -2- rules after the death of Khazani Devi. It was also alleged that request for compassionate appointment has been rightly declined as post cannot be kept reserved for minor dependent of the deceased employee. Application for compassionate appointment has to be moved within three years but it was not done. Consequently, representation of Khazani Devi for reserving post for compassionate appointment of plaintiff No.1 has been rightly declined. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2006 partly decreed the plaintiffs' suit regarding grant of family pension but dismissed the suit regarding relief of compassionate appointment. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been allowed by learned District Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2009 and thereby plaintiffs' suit has been decreed and in addition to the relief of family pension, defendants have also been directed to consider the application of plaintiff No.1 for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with instructions dated 27.03.1991 which existed at the time of death of plaintiffs' father. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that family pension has already been sanctioned to the plaintiffs. The dispute remains regarding compassionate appointment. As per school certificates produced in evidence, date of birth of plaintiff No.1 is 19.12.84 whereas date of birth of plaintiff No.2 is 13.09.1985. Thus plaintiff No.1 was aged 10 years and plaintiff No.2 a little over 9 years when their father died in harness on 20.12.1994. Plaintiffs' mother Khazani Devi died on 09.10.1997 when the plaintiffs were still minors. It is R.S.A. No.685 of 2010 -3- undisputed that Khazani Devi during her life time moved application for compassionate appointment of plaintiff No.1 on attaining the age of majority. Consequently, the said application was moved within three years of the death of plaintiffs' father Jai Karan because Khazani Devi herself died within three years of the death of Jai Karan. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of considerable period. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Versus State of Haryana and others, 1994 (4) Supreme Court Cases 138. It was contended that according to instructions, application for compassionate appointment has to be made within three years but it was not so done in the instant case. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents contended that application for compassionate appointment of plaintiff No.1 was made by his mother within three years of death of Jai Karan because she herself died within three years of the death of the deceased employee and, therefore, defendants have been rightly directed to consider the case of plaintiff No.1 for compassionate appointment in accordance with instructions dated 27.03.1991 which were prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. As noticed hereinabove, both the plaintiffs were minor when their father died in harness. Plaintiffs' mother died within three years of the death of the deceased employee but before her death, she had made application for seeking compassionate appointment for plaintiff No.1. Thus the application had been moved within three years of the death of the deceased employee. The plaintiffs were still minors when the suit was filed. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to R.S.A. No.685 of 2010 -4- enable the family of the deceased employee to overcome the hardship caused by sudden death of the employee. It is for this reason that it has been laid down that compassionate appointment should not be granted after lapse of considerable period. In the instant case, however, the plaintiffs' hardship got compounded by lapse of time. Plaintiffs' father, who was in service, died on 20.12.1994. Plaintiffs' mother died on 09.10.1997 while the plaintiffs were still minors. Accordingly, it is a case of great hardship for the plaintiffs. They have been fighting this litigation for the last twelve years. Now plaintiff No.1 is aged 26 years and plaintiff No.2 is aged 25 years. Lower appellate court has, therefore, rightly directed the defendants to consider the case of plaintiff No.1 for compassionate appointment in accordance with instructions dated 27.03.1991. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, aforesaid direction given by the lower appellate court does not require any interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. The said direction is neither against the relevant instructions nor against the principles of justice, equity and good conscious. On the contrary, in view of great hardship being faced by the plaintiffs, whose both parents died while they were still minors, it is a fit case in which the government policy for grant of compassionate appointment is required to be followed in letter and spirit. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 1st April, 2011 'raj'