CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13106 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 06, 2010 Darshna Devi .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Husband of the petitioner died on 15.2.2001 while he was working as Assistant Treasurer at Guhla in Treasury and Accounts Department, Haryana. In response to an application made, son of the petitioner was offered a post of Peon on 29.1.2004. He did not accept the same as he considered himself entitled to for a post of Clerk, which was one step lower than the post held by his late father. The petitioner accordingly made a request on 10.9.2004 to the respondents to appoint her son to the post of Clerk under an ex- gratia scheme as per the Rules then prevalent. The respondents, in response, required the son of the petitioner to join the post by 11.11.2004 with a warning that otherwise the appointment would be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13106 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: cancelled. The son of the petitioner did not join the post as offered even thereafter. Instead, the petitioner asked for payment of sum of `2,50,000/- as ex-gratia payment under the Scheme. Thereafter, she made various representations but did not receive any response till June 2007. She has accordingly now filed this writ petition to seek compassionate assistance under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Government Employees Rules, 2006 on the ground that all pending cases are to be considered under 2006 Rules in term of Rule 6 of the said Rules. The Haryana Government has formulated Rules for grant of compassionate assistance to the dependents of the deceased Government employee, which have undergone change from time to time. The husband of the petitioner died in the year 2001 and her son was offered a job of Peon on 29.1.2004. Obviously, it was under the Rules framed in the year 2003, which made a provision for grant of appointment on compassionate basis or in the alternative for payment of sum of ` 2,50,000/- as compassionate assistance. The son of the petitioner was offered a job of Peon, which he did not accept. The compassionate appointment/ compassionate assistance is primarily meant to help the family to tide over loss of bread winner, which would be the need on account of death of an employee. Once the offer of appointment was made, which was not accepted, it would obviously mean that in fact the petitioner or her son was not in need of a job so urgently or on the basis of a compassion to tied over any financial crises that the family might have faced on account of death of a bread earner. After refusing the offer of a job, the petitioner sought a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13106 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: payment of ` 2,50,000/- as ex-gratia payment. The Government was justified in declining this prayer, once the offer of job as made to son of the petitioner was not accepted. If the petitioner or her son was really in a need of job or money, then he can be expected to accept the offer and then agitate for appointment as Clerk if that was his right. Subsequently, however, the Rule was changed in the year 2005 followed by another change in Rules in the year 2006. Now the petitioner is seeking compassionate assistance under 2006 Rules. No doubt, Rule 6 makes a provision for applicability of 2006 Rules to all pending cases but the case of the petitioner or her son can not be treated as a pending case. The case for appointment was finalised in the year 2004 once the offer of appointment was made to the son of the petitioner. Non-acceptance of the job would not mean that the case was not finalised. Accordingly, this would not be a case where it can be said that case of appointment or compassionate assistance was pending consideration to say that the same would now be governed by 2006 Rules. Once the son of the petitioner was offered an appointment, which he did not accept, the immediate need for compassion would cease. Question of showing any compassion or compassionate assistance at this stage, after expiry of 9 years of the date of death, would not be justified. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 06, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE