IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2498 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31 st May, 2011 Superintending Engineer/Administration, DHBVN Ltd., Hissar & others ….Appellants Versus Smt. Nimbo Devi ….Respondent CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL PRESENT: Mr. Monish Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. * * * * * L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No.6835-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.6836-C of 2011 For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal Defendants (officers of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.) having failed in both the courts below are in second appeal. There is no factual dispute in the instant lis. Panna Lal was in the service of defendants as Line Man. He died in harness on 19.12.2000. Respondent-plaintiff Nimbo Devi is widow of the Panna Lal. She applied to the defendants for granting compassionate appointment to her son Sube Singh being fully dependant on his deceased father. He was eligible for compassionate appointment under the scheme prevalent at that time. RSA No.2498 of 2011 (O&M) However, defendants rejected the said request vide letter dated 29.04.2004. Accordingly plaintiff sought compassionate appointment for her son Sube Singh alleging that letter dated 29.04.2004 is illegal and null and void. The defendants did not controvert the factual position. It was, however, pleaded that Sube Singh had already crossed the age of 25 years at the time of death of Panna Lal because date of birth of Sube Singh is 04.04.1971 and, therefore, Sube Singh is not covered by the definition of ‘dependant’ and was, therefore, not eligible for compassionate appointment. On the other hand, family of the deceased Panna Lal was found entitled to receive ex-gratia financial assistance of Rs.2,50,000/- and plaintiff was accordingly requested vide letter dated 06.05.2004 to comply with necessary formalities for the same. But the plaintiff did not do so. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, vide judgment and decree dated 13.08.2009 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by learned District Judge Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.2011. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Defendants rejected the claim of compassionate appointment on the ground that Sube Singh was not covered by the definition of ‘dependant’ under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Employees Rules, 2003 (in short, the Rules of 2003). However, Rules of 2003 are not applicable to the case of plaintiff because Panna Lal had died on 19.12.2000 when the Rules of 2003 were not -2- RSA No.2498 of 2011 (O&M) in existence. On the contrary, plaintiff’s case was governed by the policy, which was in existence in December, 2000 at the time of death of Panna Lal. Admittedly under the said policy, age exceeding 25 years was no bar to the compassionate appointment of dependant family member of the deceased employee. In the case of Abhishek Kumar Versus State of Haryana, 2007 (3) RSJ 121, it has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Rules of 2003 would not govern the case of the appellant in that case because the said Rules were not in existence when he sought compassionate appointment and his case was required to be considered in terms of the rules which were in existence at the time of death of the deceased employee, which was February, 2001 in that case. No judgment to the contrary has been cited by the counsel for the appellants. Consequently, courts below have rightly concluded that plaintiff’s case for compassionate appointment of her son was required to be considered under the policy which was in existence at the time of death of the deceased employee Panna Lal and not in accordance with the Rules of 2003 which came in existence long thereafter. There is, therefore, no infirmity, much less illegality or perversity, in the judgments of the lower courts thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. 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 this second appeal. Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent by applying correct legal proposition. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) -3- RSA No.2498 of 2011 (O&M) JUDGE 31st May, 2011 ‘raj’ -4-