C.W.P. No.17927 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.17927 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.09.2011 Devender Kumar ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Dalal, A.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate for respondent No.5. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The petitioner, herein, is seeking quashing of the order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure P-6), whereby, the earlier resolution No.11 dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Board of Directors, appointing the petitioner as Peon has been dropped with a further prayer to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on a suitable job on compassionate ground or the petitioner be paid financial assistance as per rules. The facts, in short, are that the father of the petitioner died on 19.12.2004. The mother of the petitioner contacted the concerned authorities and filed an application/affidavit to the effect that she has no objection, in case, her son Devender Kumar, petitioner is appointed in the C.W.P. No.17927 of 2009 2 respondent-Bank on compassionate ground, as a concern for family's welfare. She has a family of six members consisting of herself, two sons and three daughters and all of them were dependent upon the income of the deceased. The Board of Directors of respondent-Bank in its meeting held on 19.12.2005 had resolved to appoint the petitioner as Peon in the respondent-Bank under the Ex-gratia scheme. It was also resolved that the Managing Director/General Manager will issue necessary orders accordingly. On 19.01.2006, the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank sent a letter to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, respondent No.3 for rescinding of the resolution Nos.11 and 12 dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Board of Directors, whereby, the Board of Directors had resolved to appoint the petitioner and one Atul Goyal on the posts of Peon in the respondent-Bank on the ground that difference of opinion has been received from the Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies, Haryana to the effect that the posts of Peon are not available. The Board of Administrators of the respondent-Bank (which is a stop gap Board) held the meeting on 18.08.2006 to consider and confirm the proceedings of the meeting of Board of Directors dated 19.12.2005 and dropped the same without assigning any reason, vide resolution No.2 dated 18.08.2006 (Annexure P- 4). Thereafter, the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank vide his letter dated 16.01.2007 intimated the mother of the petitioner that the matter relating to resolution dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Board of Directors was placed in the meeting of Board of Administrators held on 18.08.2006, wherein, the Board of Administrators have declined to approve the same and the mother of the petitioner was permitted to opt either to the claim of pay and allowances for a period of seven years or to claim of ` 2.5 lacs as one time grant under the Ex-gratia Scheme of 2006 vide Annexure P-5. On a petition filed against the order dated 18.08.2006 passed by the Board of Administrators of the respondent-Bank, the respondent No.2 vide order C.W.P. No.17927 of 2009 3 dated 30.01.2009 declined the same on the ground that the post of Peon under Ex-gratia Scheme, 2003 cannot be given to the petitioner because the quota of appointment under the Scheme is already exhausted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 6 of 2003 Rules, the Managing Director of respondent-Bank was required to prepare a seniority list of dependents of employees for compassionate appointments and keep it valid for a period of further three years. As a matter of fact, no such seniority list of dependents of employees for compassionate appointment had been prepared by the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank. The Board of Administrators without assigning any reason, dropped the resolution dated 19.12.2005 within a period of eight months. In such circumstances, the rejection of case of the petitioner before the expiry of three years which was extended upto four years in the 2005 Rules, is illegal and unjust and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondents have neither given the appointment nor given the financial assistance to the petitioner or his family members. He further submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied, if he is granted the financial assistance as per the latest compassionate appointment policy of 2006 relied on by the respondent in his written statement. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5. In para 4 of the Preliminary Objections, while submitting that there is no provision of ex-gratia appointments, reliance has been placed on the latest compassionate appointment policy of 2006. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the only question that requires to be seen is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the ex-gratia grant provided in the Rules 2003 or 2005. The State Government had framed Rules in the year 2003 for C.W.P. No.17927 of 2009 4 compassionate appointment to the dependents of the employees who died in harness. Under the Rules, the dependents of the deceased Government employee had option to receive ex-gratia appointment on compassionate ground or lump sum ex-gratia financial assistance of ` 2.5 lacs. Some amendments were made in the year 2004. Thereafter, 2003 Rules were amended in the year 2005. Under these Rules, ex-gratia assistance of ` 5 lacs was payable to the family which did not opt for ex-gratia appointment or where no such appointment could be offered within three years from the date of application. With effect from 01.08.2006, the Government has framed new Rules repealing the earlier Rules made and given effect from 18.11.2005. There is no doubt that as per Clause 6 of the 2006 Policy, all pending cases of ex-gratia assistance shall be covered under the new Rules i.e of 2006. Although the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank had resolved to appoint the petitioner in their meeting held on 19.12.2005, the said order was withdrawn by the Board of Administrators in their meeting held on 18.08.2006. The said order was conveyed by the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank as late as on 16.01.2007. Concededly when the father of the petitioner died on 19.12.2004, 2003 Rules were applicable, yet the case of the petitioner was not finalised. In other words, his case remained pending. Subsequently, 2005 Rules were formulated. Still the matter was not finalised. Admittedly, the offer of financial assistance was made for the first time on 16.01.2007 by which date, the Compassionate Appointment Policy of 2006 had come into existence vide which all pending cases were to be governed under the 2006 Policy. The 2006 Policy was applicable to the petitioner. Clause 6 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy of 2006 reads as under :- “6. All pending cases of ex-gratia assistance shall C.W.P. No.17927 of 2009 5 be covered under the new rules. The calculation of the period and payment shall be made to such cases from the date of notification of these rules. However, the families will have the option to opt for the lump sum ex-gratia grant provided in the Rules, 2003 or 2005, as the case may be, in lieu of the monthly financial assistance provided under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006.” In view of the above, the respondents cannot deny the petitioner the right to exercise his option for one time grant under the Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2005 which is admittedly stated to be ` 5 lacs. Thus, the present petition is allowed to the extent that the mother of the petitioner shall submit her option for the lump sum ex-gratia grant provided under 2005 Rules within 15 days from the receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents, thereafter, shall release the said amount in lieu of monthly financial assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance provided to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 12.09.2011 JUDGE gurpreet