C.W.P No. 8041 of 2002 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 8041 of 2002 Date of decision : May 25, 2009 Gurdev Singh, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Dalel Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioner is claiming that his son should be given compassionate appointment since he (petitioner) was retired on medical ground. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that a Division Bench of this Court on 20.12.2005 allowed an identical matter, bearing CWP No.19693 of 2004, Sushil Kumar vs State of Haryana, in the following terms :- “ Consequently, we allow the present petition and C.W.P No. 8041 of 2002 ::2:: direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground to a post as per his entitlement under the policy decision of May 16, 1995. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.” Counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner sought voluntary retirement on the ground of his medical unfitness/incapacitation and, thus, is entitled to get an employment for his dependent. He relies upon a decision of this Court in Ashu Malik vs State of Haryana, 2002(4) SCT 497, wherein a Division Bench held as follows :- “13. It is not in dispute that as per clause 5 of the policy dated August 31, 1995, a person who was declared medically unfit/incapacitated and was retired on or before attaining the age of 55 years, was entitled to an ex-gratia appointment for his dependent. We fail to see any distinction between a person who was retired having been declared medically unfit/incapacitated by the medical board and a person who sought such voluntary retirement on his medical unfitness/incapacitation. In our considered view, if all other conditions are fulfilled, the aforesaid clause 5 would be fully attracted to the case of a person who had sought voluntary retirement on the basis of his unfitness/incapacitation.” Counsel for the respondents has argued that as per rule 19 of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased C.W.P No. 8041 of 2002 ::3:: Government Employees Rules, 2003, the instructions issued by the Haryana Government from time to time in respect of providing financial assistance and appointments under ex-gratia scheme were repealed. As regards reliance on rule 19 (supra), this fact was considered by the Division Bench in Sushil Kumar's case (supra) in the following terms :- “ Even otherwise we find that the Rules, 2003 deal with only appointment on compassionate basis to the wards of deceased employees. There is no provision in the said rules for grant of employment or any other benefits to the wards of such employees who are retired on medical grounds. Thus, in these circumstances, the aforesaid situation would continue to be governed by the policy decision of the year 1995, since the Rules of 2003 do not deal with such a situation. It is not in dispute that under the policy decision of 1995 petitioner's case is fully covered by the aforesaid policy.” In the circumstances, in view of the binding precedent quoted above, I have no option but to allow this writ petition in the same terms. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms as CWP No.19693 of 2004, Sushil Kumar vs State of Haryana, and Ashu Malik vs State of Haryana, 2002(4) SCT 497. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 25, 2009. JUDGE `kk'