CWP No. 17794 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17794 of 2007 Date of Decision: 26.5.2008 Smt. Kishni ....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 Lalit Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has claimed a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 8.4.2005 (Annexure P.5), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of cash financial assistance, was declined being barred by time. Shri Kishan, husband of the petitioner, working as Assistant Lineman, with Uttari Haryana Bijli Viteran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the Nigam') died on31.5.1999. At the time of death of the husband of the petitioner, the dependents of the deceased employees were entitled to the compassionate appointment in terms of Government of Haryana Instructions dated 8.5.1995 and 31.5.1995. Later, the State of Haryana framed Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (for short `the 2003 Rules'), which were notified on 28.3.2003. Such Rules were adopted by the respondent-Nigam as well. The said Rules contemplated CWP No. 17794 of 2007 (2) appointment to the dependents of the deceased employees against the direct recruitment quota to the extent of 5% if an application is made within 3 years of death of the employee. The names of the eligible candidates were to be kept on the list, which was to remain valid for a period of three years. If the appointment could not be given within three years, the dependents of the deceased employees could opt for the cash financial assistance. The petitioner has sought appointment on compassionate ground on 15.9.1999. The said fact is evident from the communication Annexure P.8, from SDO (OP), Model Town, Sub Division, Panipat to Xen, City Division, Panipat. Though the Xen has replied to SDO that the application is incomplete vide communication dated 24.9.1999 (Annexure P.9), but it is the case of the petitioner that no such communication has been addressed to the petitioner nor received by the petitioner. On the other hand, in reply, the respondents have relied upon the communications, Annexures R.1 and R.2 purportedly made by the petitioner in the year 2004, claiming appointment on compassionate ground or cash financial assistance. It is, thus, contended that in fact, the application has been made by the petitioner in the year 2004 i.e. much after the death of her deceased husband and therefore, the application has been rightly declined being barred by time. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the stand of the respondents that the application seeking cash financial assistance is barred by time, is not tenable. In fact, from the communications, Annexures P.8 and P.9, it is evident that an application was received by the SDO and sent to the Xen. Thereafter, no communication has been addressed to the petitioner that the application is incomplete. Even if the application was incomplete, it cannot be said CWP No. 17794 of 2007 (3) that the petitioner has not sought appointment on compassionate ground within the time prescribed. The communications, Annexures R.1 and R.2, would at best be steps in continuation of the earlier application to complete the deficiency if any, in seeking appointment on compassionate grounds or to seek cash financial assistance. Therefore, the stand of the respondents is not tenable. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P.5) is set aside. Consequently, while setting aside the impugned order, Annexure P.5, the respondents are directed to release the cash financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lacs to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the receipt of a certified copy of the order. Writ petition is allowed in the above terms. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 26.5.2008 ds