C.W.P.No.197 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.197 of 2007 Date of Decision : 18.3.2008 Sunil Kumar .....Petitioner versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri T.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.10.2003, Annexure P-4, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined and order dated 13.1.2006, Annexure P-6 whereby the representation of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been found to be without any merit and has been declined and only ex-gratia financial assistance was found to be admissible. Ram Lal Arora, father of the petitioner, while working as Assistant Foreman with the respondent-Nigam, died on 9.3.2002. He left behind his wife Shakuntla, married daughters Shashi Bala and Seema Rani, a married son Anil Kumar and the petitioner who is unmarried son of the C.W.P.No.197 of 2007 2 deceased. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the instructions issued by the State Government dated 8.5.1995 and 31.8.1995 were applicable which were adopted by the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Nigam), on 2.8.1995 and 3.11.1995 respectively. In view of the said instructions, the mother of the petitioner applied for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. When the matter was pending consideration, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the `2003 Rules'), came into force with publication in the Haryana Government Official Gazette on 4.3.2003, in exercise of the power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said Rules contemplate that all the pending cases have to be decided in terms of such Rules. Thereafter, the case relating to compassionate appointment of the petitioner was examined under the said Rules, but was rejected on 21.10.2003 on the ground that the father of the petitioner was 56 years 10 months and 26 days of age at the time of his death and therefore, in terms of Rule 3 (d) (iii) of 2003 Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees (Amendment) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the `2004 Rules'), notified on 10.2.2004, wherein Rule 3 (d) (iii) has been repealed. Therefore, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. Earlier, in pursuance of the directions of this Court, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was C.W.P.No.197 of 2007 3 again reconsidered by the respondents and an order was passed on 13.1.2006, Annexure P-6, whereby the cash financial assistance was found to be payable in terms of Rule 4 (c) of the 2003 Rules, as amended on 10.2.2004. In reply, it has been pointed out that in terms of 2003 Rules, the compassionate appointment is not admissible to the dependents of those deceased Government employees died after attaining the age of 55 years and therefore, the case of the petitioner was not found to be feasible for acceptance under the Rules. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The 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, has considered various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court. It was 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 the deceased Government 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. The 2003 Rules were amended on 10.2.2004 whereby in respect of deceased employee who was more than 55 years of age at the time of his death, it was contemplated to grant financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs only to the dependents of the deceased employee. Such C.W.P.No.197 of 2007 4 amendment is retrospective i.e., from the date of framing of the Rules w.e.f. 4.3.2003, itself. The amended Rules read as under:- “2. Object of the Rules:- The objects of the rules is to assist the family of a deceased employee in tiding over the emergency situation, resulting from the loss of the bread-earner by giving either of the following options:- xx xx xx (iii) ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family of the deceased Government employees to be paid at the rate of Rs.2.5 lacs, in case where the Government employee dies in harness at the gate of 55 years or thereafter. xx xx xx 4. Option: (1) A dependent of the deceased/missing Government employee shall give in writing his/her preference of option within 3 years from the date of death of the Government employee, for one of the following:- xx xx xx (c) ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family of the deceased Government employee to be paid at the rate of Rs.2.5 lacs in case the Government employee dies in harness at the age of 55 years or thereafter. xx xx xx xx.” In the present case the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined on 21.10.2003 on the ground that the deceased father of the petitioner has attained 55 years of age before his death. In respect of such deceased Government employees, 3rd option has been introduced in the aforesaid Rules with retrospective effect i.e., C.W.P.No.197 of 2007 5 from the date of framing of 2003 Rules, so as to grant ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs. Therefore, in terms of Rule 2 (iii) of the 2003 Rules, as introduced on 10.2.2004, but with effect from 4.3.2003, a Government employee who has attained the age of 55 years or more on the date of his death, is entitled to financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs. In view of the above fact, we do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground after the death of his father who was more than 56 years 10 months and 26 days of age at the time of his death. Thus, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to disburse the amount of Rs.2.5 lacs, as mentioned in the communication Annexure P-6, to the petitioners within a period of one month from today. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 18-03-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE