FAO No. 1479 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on April 29,2010. Hisar Improvement Trust and another --Appellants vs. Smt.Shanti Devi and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Sudhir Mittal,Advocate,for the appellants Mr.Arvind Rajotia,Advocate,for the respondents Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This appeal is directed against order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Circle Hisar, dated 29.1.2010, whereby the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs.3,12,940/- to be deposited by the appellants in the Court within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the claimants were also held entitled to simple interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of order till the date of actual realisation. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that since one of the two sons of the deceased has been given compassionate appointment by the appellant/Improvement Trust, Hisar, therefore, he is not entitled to claim compensation in view of Section 3 (5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short,'the Act'). FAO No. 1479 of 2010 (O&M) 2 The reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the compassionate appointment is given to compensate the death of bread winner of the family of the claimants. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no evidence on record of any agreement that was reached between the parties to the lis whereby compassionate appointment has been given to the son of the deceased in lieu of his settlement of all claims muchless the claim which has been received under the Act by way of the present petition. On a querry put to the learned counsel for the appellants as to whether there is any such agreement, he has fairly stated that no written agreement has been entered into between the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I am of the considered view that compassionate appointment has been given under the policy of the government and not under the Act and since there is no agreement between the parties, it would not be deemed to have been given under the provision of Section 3 (5) of the Act. Hence, the appeal is found to be meritless and the same is hereby dismissed. April 29,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge FAO No. 1479 of 2010 (O&M) 3