CWP No.16879/2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.16879/2006 Date of Decision: 31.1.2008 Dhanpati Devi and another ............. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ..............Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Sh.Madan Mohan, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh.Harish Rathee, Sr.D.A.G.Haryana for the respondents. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J.(ORAL) Petitioner no.1 is widow and petitioner no.2 is son of deceased Sh.Ram Diya, who died in harness on 3.9.1997. This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to order dated 6.10.2005 (Annexure P-10), vide which claim of the petitioner no.2, to get appointment in service on compassionate grounds, was rejected. It is apparent from the records and not disputed before us that when husband of petitioner no.1 died in the year 1997, petitioner no.2 was a minor. Keeping in view the policy then prevailing, name of petitioner no.2 was kept at Sr.No.62 in the list of dependents, to whom appointment was to be offered on compassionate grounds. It is also an admitted fact that at the time of death of Sh.Ram Diya, instructions Annexure R-1 dated 8.5.1995 were in vogue and as per the provisions of those instructions, to get appointment on compassionate basis, application was to be moved within three years. After the lapse of three years, it appears that name of petitioner no.2 was removed from the list as he was not eligible to get the post on account of his age. In the year 2004, letter CWP No.16879/2006 2 Annexure P-2 was issued by the department to the petitioners, stating therein that in lieu of appointment on compassionate basis they may get ex- gratia financial assistance of Rs.2,50,000/-. With regard to this letter it has been stated in the reply that it was issued by the dealing hand without any sanction from the competent authority and further that ex-gratia financial assistance was available to the dependents of the deceased employees only under the rules which were framed in the year 2003 and those were not applicable to the case of the petitioner. We feel that stand taken is perfectly justified in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2007(3)RSJ 121, wherein while dealing with similar controversy, it was observed thus:- "5. Appellant herein had sought for appointment on compassionate grounds at a point of time when 2003 Rules were not in existence. His case, therefore, was required to be considered in terms of the Rules which were in existence in the year 2001. Evidently, in the State of Haryana a State-wise list is maintained. In terms of the said list so maintained by the State of Haryana, the appellant was entitled to obtain an appointment on compassionate grounds. He was offered such an appointment by the State. It was the District Magistrate, who came on the way and refused to provide for the post." In view of the facts stated above, no case for interference is made out. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 31.1.2008 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge CWP No.16879/2006 3