C.W.P.No.813 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.813 of 2007 Date of Decision : April 02,2008 Bhateri Devi .....Petitioner versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner, wife of the deceased Danu Ram, has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking to quash the communication dated 7.6.2006, Annexure P-3, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment of compassionate appointment was declined. Danu Ram, husband of the petitioner, who was employed as Chowkidar with the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the `Nigam'), died on 11.11.2004. At the time of death of the husband of the petitioner, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the `2003 Rules') were in force. The C.W.P.No.813 of 2007 2 petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground, which was declined on the ground that her son Amarjeet Singh is in Government service and getting Rs.16200/- per month salary and thus, the income of the family of the deceased is more than 6000/- per month. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the son of the petitioner, who is employed in Government service, is married and living separately from the petitioner and, therefore, he is not a member of the family which disentitles the petitioner from seeking financial assistance. It is argued that though the word 'family' is not defined in the Rules, but the 'indigent family' defined under the 2003 Rules will not include the income of the son of the deceased who is independent and living separately. It is no doubt true that the 'family' has not been defined under the Rules. But we are unable to comprehend the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the son of the petitioner who is drawing more than Rs.16000/- salary is not member of the family of the deceased which may entitle the petitioner to seek financial assistance in terms of the 2003 Rules. The relevant clauses of the 2003 Rules read as under:- “3.Definitions: In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) xx xx xx xx (b) “compassionate financial assistance” means the financial assistance to the tune of 2.5 lacs, provided as ex-gratia assistance over and above all other benefits to the completely dependent members of the indigent family of the deceased; C.W.P.No.813 of 2007 3 (c) to (g) xx xx xx xx (h) “Indigent family” where the family of the deceased/missing Government employee is completely dependent upon him/her and deserve immediate assistance for relief from destitution and whose income does not exceed Rs.6000/- per month including the family pension. xx xx xx xx 8. Criteria of eligibility: The criteria for eligibility under these Rules shall be as under:- (a) The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. (b) The monthly income of the family shall not exceed Rs.6000/- per month, from all sources other than family pension. For this purpose, the income of the entire family of the deceased Government employee will be taken into account and not just the income of the dependent who has applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. (c) The applicant for appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules. (d) Where spouse of the deceased is already in Government service, no other dependent member shall be eligible for appointment or ex- gratia compassionate financial assistance. (e) Married son of the deceased will be eligible only if no other member of the family is eligible for Government service and his spouse is not C.W.P.No.813 of 2007 4 already in Government service and unmarried eligible dependent is not willing to join service and give an affidavit to this effect.” A perusal of the above provisions would show that the financial assistance is payable to the completely dependent members of the indigent family of the deceased. Indigent family is a family of the deceased completely dependent upon him and deserves immediate assistance for relief from destitution. Even married son of the deceased is eligible for appointment in Government service on compassionate ground in terms of Rule 8 (e) of the 2003 Rules. Meaning thereby that a married son is considered to be a member of the family. It is, thus, apparent that if married son is considered eligible for appointment as dependent of the deceased, it will lead to inference that the family of the deceased would include married son as well. It is not disputed that the son of the petitioner is drawing salary of more than Rs.16000/- per month. If the petitioner is not being maintained inspite of the fact that son of the petitioner is getting more than Rs.16000/- per month salary, it is open to the petitioner to seek her remedy to claim maintenance from her son in accordance with law, but that will not entitle the petitioner to seek financial assistance as the son of the petitioner is gainfully employed in Government service and is getting more than Rs.16000/- per month salary. The said interpretation necessitates keeping in view the principles of appointment on compassionate grounds. The consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right. The object of offering employment on compassionate ground or the financial assistance is only to enable the family to get over the financial crises which it faces at the time of the death of the sole C.W.P.No.813 of 2007 5 breadwinner. As the dependent family of the deceased is already getting sufficient means of sustainance, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment or financial assistance as a vested right. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 02-04-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE