C.W.P. No.8595 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8595 of 2010 Date of Decision.11.05.2010 Koyal Bishnoi and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana through its Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, General Administration Department, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate and Ms. Pooja Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner challenges the order issued by the respondent on 16.12.2008 when the petitioner's plea for financial assistance of Rs.5 lacs was rejected and it was stated in response that Rs.2.5 lacs as compassionate financial assistance was provided as per 2003 Rules and no further relief could be granted. 2. It is an admitted case that the petitioner's husband died on 19.09.2003, while he was working as a Professor, Plant Pathology and as per the Compassionate Appointment Rules extant at the time in the year 2003, he was entitled to either compassionate appointment or financial assistance. It appears that after the death of the 1st petitioner's husband, she had applied within a period of C.W.P. No.8595 of 2010 -2- three years for compassionate appointment. The Government, however, did not provide to the petitioner compassionate appointment but provided only for compassionate financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lacs admissible under the 2003 Rules. The amount was also received by the petitioner. Subsequently, when in the Rules of the year 2005 and 2006, the compassionate financial assistance had been raised to Rs.5 lacs, the petitioner had made a demand for payment of Rs.5 lacs. It is not worthy at that time when a representation had been made, the petitioner had not sought for compassionate appointment but on the other hand wanted an increase of financial assistance. The Government rejected such a plea and said that only the 2003 Rules were applicable and the amount of Rs.2.5 lacs granted was, what was admissible. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pleads fervently that when the Rules of 2003 were applicable, the said Rules provided for compassionate appointment or financial assistance and one of them was to be given depending on the option exercised by the dependent. In this case, it appears that the Government, at the time when a request was made at the fag end of the 3rd year, took the view that the subsequent Rules alone could be applied and since the 2005 Rules provided only for financial assistance, financial assistance had been given. When it ultimately turned out that it were 2003 Rules, which were applicable, the petitioner contends that the payment was received on a wrong assumption, fed by the respondents themselves that she was entitled only to financial assistance, when compassionate appointment ought C.W.P. No.8595 of 2010 -3- to have been granted. The 2003 Scheme of compassionate appointment provides through Rule 4(2) that an exercise of option shall be permitted only once and shall not be changed once exercised. In my view, while an option could be considered, there is no mandate that the Government shall always accede only to the option exercised. If appointment had been given, there could be no room for controversy now. On the other hand, if appointment had not been given, although an option was so exercised and the financial assistance had been given albeit under a wrong assumption and that was received by the person, it shall be impermissible for such a person to turn around after 7 years to demand an enforcement of a claim for compassionate appointment. It must be understood that any scheme for compassionate appointment itself is a deviation from Article 14 and therefore, there is no specific right to a person to demand more than what the scheme provides. Appointment or financial assitance was an alternate to each of these and if one of them had been granted, there could be no further cause for complaint. It should also be borne in mind that any scheme for compassionate appointment is essentially to relieve the family in distress and the immediacy in action is paramount. If the petitioner has had the benefit of financial assistance with a period of three years, that instead of giving financial assistance, the deceased's son must have been appointed, cannot be a relief that a person can lawfully espouse in the year 2010, seven years after the death had ensued. It is another way of saying that the family has sufficiently learnt to cope with the death of a bread winner and the C.W.P. No.8595 of 2010 -4- immediacy of action for compassionate appointment no longer survives. 4. Learned counsel states that the issue whether the compassionate appointment alone should be given instead of financial assistance is before a Full Bench and the matter would require a serious consideration on the same. As on date, I am not shown any particular decision that if there are two reliefs possible, one of employment and another of financial assistance, one in alteration to the other, the grant of one of the two reliefs could still be a matter of challenge. I hasten to therefore dispose of the writ petition with the finding that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs which they are seeking in the writ petition. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 11, 2010 Pankaj*