LPA No. 354 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 354 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision 28.02.2011 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ---Appellants Versus Smt. Parkasho Devi ---Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. R.S. Kundu, Advocate for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 18.08.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-respondent was entitled to consideration of her son's claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the instructions/ policy issued by Haryana Government in the year 1995, when the bread earner of the family had died. The case of the respondent is that the policy of compassionate appointment had got changed in the year 2003 and therefore, those instructions would apply. 2. For rejecting the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek LPA No. 354 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2007(2) SCT 457 and proceeded to observe that the policy/ instructions, as prevailing on the date of death, would apply. Accordingly, the writ petitioner- respondent has been held entitled to consideration of her son's case for appointment on compassionate basis in accordance with the policy/ instructions of 1995. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we find no legal infirmity in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any error of law, which may warrant admission of the appeal. 4. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE February 28, 2011 Atul