IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 7150 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 06.08.2009 Inder Jit .... PETITIONER Versus The Superintending Engineer and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner is son of Late Shri Jai Ram Dass, who was working as LDC (C) with Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and was posted as Nilokheri, District Karnal, and expired on 13.1.2003. After the death of his father, the petitioner approached the respondents for the ex- gratia appointment on compassionate ground, in view of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 2003'). When his claim for ex-gratia appointment was not considered, the petitioner CWP No. 7150 of 2008 -2- filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to give him ex-gratia appointment under the Rules of 2003. In the written statement, it has been stated that the petitioner is not eligible for ex-gratia appointment under the Rules of 2003, as at the time of the death of his father on 13.1.2003, the petitioner was 33 years of age. His mother had already expired before the death of his father, and his two sisters were also married. It is stated that since at the time of death of the deceased employee, the petitioner was 33 years of age, he does not fall within the definition of `dependent', as defined under Rule 3 (e) (ii) of the Rules of 2003, therefore, he was not eligible for compassionate appointment. I have heard counsel for the parties. It is the conceded position that at the time of the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner was 33 years of age. Under Rule 3 (e) of the Rules of 2003, the term `dependent' has been defined as under : “3. Definitions : In these rules unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) xx xx xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx xx xx (d) xx xx xx xx xx (e) “dependent” means :- (i) spouse of the deceased Government employee or missing Government employee; (ii) son (including adopted son) till he attains the age CWP No. 7150 of 2008 -3- of 30 years subject to the proof of adoption as envisaged in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956); (iii) unmarried daughter (including adopted daughter) till she attains the age of 30 years, subject to the proof of adoptions as envisaged in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956).” Thus, at the time of the death of his father, the petitioner did not fall within the definition of `dependent'. His mother had already expired and both his sisters were married before the death of his father. In the similar circumstances, this Court in Kuldip Kumar versus Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others (CWP No. 6005 of 2007, decided on 12.3.2008) has rejected the claim of ex-gratia appointment under the Rules of 2003, while observing as under : “The petitioner is more than 30 years of age at the time of death of his father, therefore, even as per the amended Rules, the petitioner was not dependent on his father in terms of Rule 3 (e) read with Rule 6 (1) of the 2003 Rules. Thus, the eligibility criteria as defined under Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules is not satisfied so as to grant appointment on compassionate ground. In view of the said fact, we do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground after the death of his father who was more than 55 years and 8 months of age at the time of his death and also for the reasons that the petitioner was 33 years of age on the date of death of his father.” In view of the fact that the petitioner does not fall under the definition of CWP No. 7150 of 2008 -4- `dependent' of the deceased employee, he has no claim for ex-gratia appointment. Dismissed. August 06, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE