C.W.P.No.14361 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.14361 of 2007 Date of Decision: May 06, 2008 Bhagwanti Devi and another .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Mr.NK Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5. ... HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the order dated 4.8.2005, Annexure P4, and order dated 29.5.2006, Annexure P7 and letter dated 3.1.2007, Annexure P8, whereby the claim of petitioner No.2 for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. The husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 – Shri Jagmohan Lal, while working as Senior Technician with Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Nigam'), died on 16.1.2000. Petitioner No.1 submitted an application for appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate ground in the year 2000 itself. On 11.7.2002, it was communicated by the Managing Director of the Nigam to C.W.P.No.14361 of 2007 -2- Executive Engineer, Dhulkot that employment case of petitioner No.2 will be decided as and when its turn comes in order of seniority. Even when the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was pending, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the '2003 Rules') came into force on 31.3.2003. As per rules, the seniority list of the candidates eligible for compassionate appointment was to remain valid for a period of three years. On 4.8.2005, a communication, Annexure P4, was addressed to the petitioner to the effect that the case of the petitioner is not likely to turn up for appointment under the prescribed quota for giving compassionate appointment, therefore, the petitioners can opt for cash financial assistance within a period of one month of the expiry of the validity of seniority list which is valid upto 31.3.2006. In response to the said communication, petitioner No.1 claimed that her offer for appointment on compassionate ground be treated as final and her son be given appointment on compassionate ground. Said request of the petitioner was declined on 29.5.2006, vide Annexure P7. Vide subsequent communication dated 3.1.2007, Annexure P8, the petitioner was asked to submit option for financial assistance provided under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the '2006 Rules'). A perusal of the instructions of earlier 2003 Rules shows that 5% of the direct recruit posts were contemplated to be filled up from amongst the dependents of the deceased employees. The name of petitioner No.2 was kept in the list of eligible candidates seeking appointment on compassionate ground, but his turn of appointment did not mature and in C.W.P.No.14361 of 2007 -3- the meantime, in terms of Rule 6 of 2003 Rules, the validity of such list came to an end. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.15304 of 2006, Jagdish Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam and another, decided on 26.2.2008 and in Civil Writ Petition No.6005 of 2007, Kuldip Kumar Versus Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam and another, decided on 12.3.2008, has considered the various judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that the petitioner has no right to seek appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the instructions applicable on the date of death of deceased employee. The consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right. The object of offering employment on compassionate ground is only to enable the family to get over the financial crises which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner. In Civil Writ Petition No.15156 of 2006 (Mukesh Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others), we have upheld an option given to the petitioner for grant of financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs prior to the commencement of 2006 Rules. It has been held that after the expiry of validity of seniority list, the respondents are justified in law in offering ex-gratia financial assistance. Since the validity of the list of persons seeking compassionate appointment was to remain valid for a period of three years and such list has come to an end by afflux of time by 31.3.2006, therefore, the petitioners are only entitled to financial assistance in terms of 2003 Rules. It may be noticed that the provision of giving compassionate appointment has been done away with framing of 2006 Rules w.e.f. 1.8.2006. 2006 Rules contemplates grant of financial assistance only. Since the claim of C.W.P.No.14361 of 2007 -4- the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was decided prior to framing of 2006 Rules, the petitioners are entitled to financial assistance only in terms of 2003 Rules. In view of the said fact, we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents to disburse financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lacs to the dependents of the deceased employee within a period of one month from today. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE ( MOHINDER PAL ) May 06, 2008 JUDGE SRM