CWP No. 18925 of 2004 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18925 of 2004 Date of Decision: 3.3.2008 Smt. Laxmi 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: Shri Gunjan Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri O.P. Sharma, Additional AG, Haryana, for respondente Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Manoj Sood, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The claim of the petitioners is for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits to the family of the deceased Balram Sharma and to seek appointment on compassionate ground apart from interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. The husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 Shri Balram Sharma was working as a Chowkidar in the privately aided college. He died on 18.6.2003. Petitioner No.1 claimed compassionate appointment for her son and also other benefits. Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court claiming appointment for her son under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependent of Deceased Govt. Employees Rules, 2003 (for short `the 2003 Rules') and also sought a writ for payment of the retiral benefits. The CWP No. 18925 of 2004 (2) said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.10.2004 as the petitioner sought to approach the departmental authorities for redressal of her grievance. In respect of the payment of the terminal benefits, Form Nos. 20 and 10D duly attested from the establishment where the deceased was working, stands submitted in terms of the order dated 11.2.2008. In view of the said fact, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, is expected to make the payment of the due amount expeditiously. To that extent, no further orders are called for. The petitioners have claimed compassionate appointment on the basis of the 2003 Rules. The deceased was working in an aided college. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not refer to any provision of law in support of his contention that 2003 Rules are applicable to the respondent- Establishment. The said Rules, framed by the State Government, are applicable to the employees of the State Government or to such other establishment which opts to adopt such Rules. Since, there is no proof of adoption of such Rules by the respondent-Establishment, therefore, reliance of the petitioners on such Rules, is wholly misconceived. Independent of Rules, the petitioners have no legally enforceable right. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 03-03-2008 ds