RSA No.1051 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1051 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2011 State of Haryana and others .....Appellants v. Sunil Kumar .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 28.8.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-defendants against judgment and decree dated 24.7.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sirsa, vide which suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-State and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present regular second appeal are that father of respondent-plaintiff was working as Mathematics Teacher under present appellants-State. He died on 14.6.1995, while he was in service. At that time ex gratia scheme of Haryana Government, which was issued vide Memo No.16/5/95-6 GS-II, dated 8.5.1995 was in force. As per the said scheme, an application was moved by respondent-plaintiff for compassionate appointment. The application was kept pending by RSA No.1051 of 2011(O&M) -2- appellants-State as he was minor at that time. However, on his attaining majority, the application was dismissed on the ground that in view of subsequent instructions issued by the State Government, his application for compassionate appointment has become time barred. There is no dispute that respondent-plaintiff was entitled for appointment after attaining majority, as per the instructions prevalent on the date of death of his father. It has been rightly observed by both the Courts below that rightful claim of respondent-plaintiff cannot be denied merely because certain new instructions came into force subsequently. Learned Courts below have rightly placed reliance upon Sheela Devi v. State of Haryana and others, 2008(4) SCT 475 and Neeraj Malik v. State of Haryana and others, 2007 (2) SLR 91. Moreover Hon'ble Apex Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2007(3) RSJ 121, considered the Rules of 2001 as well as of 2003 and it was specifically held that as appellant had sought for appointment on compassionate ground at a point of time when 2003 Rules were not in existence, his case, therefore, was required to be considered in terms of Rules, which were in existence in the year 2001. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:- “5.Appellant herein had sought for appointment on compassionate grounds at a point of time when 2003 Rules were not in existence. His case, therefore, was required to be considered in terms of the Rules which were in existence in the year 2001. Evidently, in the State of Haryana a State- wise list is maintained. In terms of the said list so maintained by the State of Haryana, the appellant was RSA No.1051 of 2011(O&M) -3- entitled to obtain an appointment on compassionate grounds. He was offered such an appointment by the State. It was the District Magistrate who came on the way and refused to provide for the post.” Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 17.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge