RSA No.1446 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1446 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.12.2008 Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. And another .....Appellants Vs. Nathi Ram ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.R.S. Kundu, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and decree dated 28.1.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge,Karnal, accepting the appeal, setting aside the judgement and decree dated 5.5.2007, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, as a result, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent. The respondent filed a suit challenging the decision of the Managing Director, Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh dated 10.2.2004, rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment. The trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the respondent has no right to be considered for compassionate appointment. The first appellate Court, held that the order dated 10.2.2004 is illegal, as the Managing Director has not applied relevant rules, has taken into consideration matters that are RSA No.1446 of 2008 2 irrelevant and, therefore, directed the appellants to reconsider the respondent's case for compassionate appointment, in accordance with the rules prevailing on 10.6.2001 i.e. the date Jagmal Singh passed away. Counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the judgements in Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryaan, 1994(4) SCC 138 and Punjab National Bank V. Ashwinie Kumar Taneja, 2004(7) SCC 265, the first appellate Court committed an error in directing appointment on compassionate grounds. It is submitted that compassionate appointment is a concession and as the respondent does not fulfill the criteria set out for compassionate appointment,the appeal be accepted, the judgement and decree passed by the first appellate Court be set aside and the suit be dismissed. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the first appellate Court has merely directed the Managing Director, Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd, to reconsider the claim for compassionate appointment and has not directed appointment. It is submitted that there is no error in the judgement directing reconsideration of the respondent's claim in accordance with the rules prevailing on 10.6.2001, the date of Jagmal Singh's demise. It is further argued that the judgements in Umesh Kumar Nagpal and Punjab National Bank's cases (supra) would be relevant when the appellants reconsider the respondent's claim. The direction issued by the first appellate Court is, therefore, legal and valid and does not require interference. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. The respondent's claim for compassionate appointment was RSA No.1446 of 2008 3 rejected under Rules framed in the year 2003. Admittedly,Jagmal Singh died in harness on 10.6.2001. As a result, the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment is to be considered in accordance with the rules prevailing on the said date. The Additional District Judge, Karnal, had merely ordered reconsideration of the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the rules admittedly framed by the appellants as prevailing on 10.6.2001. I find no error of law or of fact, as would require interference with the impugned directions. As no question of law much-less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. The appellants would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with relevant instructions/law. Any observation on merits of the respondent's claim shall be disregarded. 15.12.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE