C.W.P.No.1345 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.1345 of 2007 Date of Decision : 01.04.2008 Moti Ram .....Petitioner versus Utter Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. -.- 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 seeking to quash the order Annexure P-1, dated 1.10.2003, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was declined. Puran Chand, father of the petitioner, while working as Lineman with the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Nigam), died on 4.9.2002. The petitioner being dependent son of the deceased Puran Chand, sought 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'), but such claim of the petitioner C.W.P.No.1345 of 2007 2 was rejected by the respondents on 1.10.2003 vide Annexure P-1, on the ground that the petitioner was more than 25 years of age at that time and thus, not eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground. Subsequently, a communication dated 14.9.2005, Annexure P-6 was addressed to the petitioner to avail the facility of cash financial assistance. The petitioner has sought to quash the order Annexure P-1 dated 1.10.2003, on the ground that the maximum age prescribed for Government employment to the dependents of the deceased Government employee is 30 years in terms of the Notification dated 17.12.2004, Annexure P-3. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that he is eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner is born on 11.12.1972. Therefore, he was more than 30 years of age when the 2003 Rules were notified on 4.3.2003. Thus, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of the amendment in the Rules revising the age from 25 years to 30 years vide notification dated 17.12.2004. Even the said notification is not retrospective in nature. 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 in 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 C.W.P.No.1345 of 2007 3 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. In view of the above, it is apparent that the communication Annexure P-6 issued on 14.9.2005 seeking facility of cash financial assistance to the petitioner is in terms of the Rules applicable on 14.9.2005 and thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order Annexure P-1 and the offer given by the respondents on 14.9.2005, vide Annexure P-6, which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the cash financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lacs to the dependent members of the deceased employee in terms of the 2003 Rules, within a period of one month from today. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 01-04-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE