C.W.P.No.5431 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5431 of 2008 Date of Decision : 01.04.2008 Sushil Kumar .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Ms.Nirmaljit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- 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. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the `2003 Rules') and the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the `2005 Rules'). Om Parkash, father of the petitioner, while working as Secretary `A' Grade with the Fatehabad Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Fatehabad (hereinafter referred to as the `Bank’), died on 27.1.2005. He was survived by his widow, two sons and two daughters. The petitioner was 16 years and 3 months of age at the time of death of his father and thus, he C.W.P.No.5431 of 2008 2 was not eligible for appointment to the post of Daftri. The request of the mother of the petitioner for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was considered by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 10.3.2005, wherein it was resolved to appoint the petitioner on fulfilling the eligibility conditions by the petitioner. It was on 7.6.2007, the petitioner requested for grant of appointment on compassionate ground on attaining the age of majority on 24.1.2007. The said claim of the petitioner has been declined by the respondents vide resolution dated 22.2.2008, Annexure P-8, wherein it was resolved to grant financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee as the employment cannot be provided to the petitioner. It is the said resolution dated 22.2.2008 which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The 2003 Rules and 2005 Rules have been repealed by the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the `2006 Rules') framed on 1.8.2006 which, it appears, are applicable to the respondent bank as well being instrumentality and agency of the State Government. Under the 2006 Rules, the appointment on compassionate ground is not permissible, but it only contemplates financial assistance in terms of Rules 6 & 8 of the 2006 Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has to be examined keeping in view the date of death of the deceased and the Rules applicable on the said date. C.W.P.No.5431 of 2008 3 However, we do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 and 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. It was held that it was necessary for the Authority to frame Rules, Regulations or to issue administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the present case, on the date of death of father of petitioner, it was the 2003 Rules which were regulating the appointment on compassionate ground. Such Rules have been substituted by 2006 Rules framed in terms of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In terms of 2006 Rules, the petitioner cannot be offered appointment on compassionate ground as in terms of 2006 Rules, only financial assistance is permissible. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present C.W.P.No.5431 of 2008 4 writ petition. The same is dismissed. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to opt for financial assistance in terms of the 2006 Rules. As and when the petitioner submits option under the 2006 Rules, the same shall be considered by the respondents within one month thereafter. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 01-04-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE