CWP No.567 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.567 of 2007 Date of decision: August 8 , 2008 Smt.Anguri Devi and another -----Petitioner Vs. The Sate of Haryana and others -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. YP Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl.A.G. Haryana for the State. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 5.1.2006 Annexure P.2 and letter dated 21.4.2006 Annexure P.4 and seeks a direction to appoint petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds. 2. Case of the petitioners is that Udey Singh, father of petitioner No.2 was employed as Class IV employee who died in harness on 18.5.1999. Demand for compassionate appointment was made which was not granted. Instead, payment of Rs.2.50 lacs was offered as financial assistance. 1 CWP No.567 of 2007 3. Case of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that compassionate policy of the Haryana Government was not applicable to the said respondents. In any case, as per policy Annexure R3/2, applicable to the respondent Sugar Mills, compassionate appointment could not be given for want of a vacancy. It is also stated that the concerned employee had already crossed the age of 55 in which case only financial assistant of Rs.2.50 lacs was payable. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per instructions Annexure P.1 dated 8.5.1995, compassionate appointment was required to be given irrespective of availability of vacancy. New instructions in the year 2003 which provided for requirement of vacancy will not apply to death prior to the policy. Reliance was placed on judgments of this Court in Neeraj Malik v. State of Haryana and others, 2007(1) RSJ 235 and Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1996(2) SLR 230 and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2006(13) SCALE 658, to submit that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered in the light of instructions of 1995. 6. A perusal of instructions dated 8.5.1995 Annexure P.1 shows that the same are applicable only to employees of the State Government. The deceased was an employee of Cooperative Sugar 2 CWP No.567 of 2007 Mill and not employee of the State Government. The judgments relied upon are, thus, not attracted to the employees of the Cooperative Societies who were not employees of the State Government. 7. We do not find any ground to entertain this petition. 8. We, however, record the statement of learned counsel for the contesting respondents that financial assistance of Rs.2.50 lacs will be given to the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is disposed of. Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 8 , 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3