C.O.C.P.No.1656 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.O.C.P.No.1656 of 2009 Date of Decision:-10.9.2009 Harish Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Maha Singh, FC and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Umesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): As per the averments made in the present petition, father of the petitioner was declared unfit for service by the Medical Board and as such, was voluntarily retired from service on 25.11.1999. He requested the Department for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis. The case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis was rejected by respondent No.2 on the ground that as per instructions dated 31.3.2003, no appointment can be made on compassionate basis in the case of invalidation out of service on medical grounds. Petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.15033 of 2006 which was allowed vide judgment dated 26.3.2009 in terms of judgment of this Court in CWP No.337 of 2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the aforesaid judgment in his favour, the respondents have not taken action to give him appointment. C.O.C.P.No.1656 of 2009 2 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. CWP No.337 of 2007 was allowed by this Court in the same terms as in a judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar Versus State of Haryana, CWP No.19693 of 2004 wherein it was observed as under:- “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 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 present case, father of the petitioner, who was medically unfit for a long time, had requested for voluntary retirement and he was retired as such with effect from 24.10.2000. The case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was received by the respondents on 5.12.2000 and vide letter dated 10.5.2001 his name was entered in the State level register maintained for the purpose of granting service on compassionate ground and petitioner was informed that no post of Group-D was available. In the meantime, Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Govt. Employees Rules 2003 came into force and earlier polices of C.O.C.P.No.1656 of 2009 3 Ex-gratia appointment were repealed. These Rules of 2003 were also applicable to cases of compassionate appointment which were pending on the date of coming into force of these Rules and as per new policy the petitioner did not remain entitled to get the benefit of compassionate appointment on the ground of his father being invalidated out of service on medical grounds. Thus, in the present case, this Court had relied upon a policy decision of 1995 to grant appointment to the wards of Govt. employee invalidated out of service on medical grounds. Two Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court have taken a view that the rules in operation at the time of death would be applicable (in the judgments of this Court titled as Lalita Sharma Vs. State of Haryana in CWP No.6890 of 2007 decided on 11.7.2008 and Sheela Devi vs. State of Haryana and another in CWP No.8844 of 2007 decided on 22.8.2008). Likewise, there are two Hon'ble Division Benches who have taken the contradictory view to the effect that the rules applicable at the date on which the case was considered would be applicable (in the judgments of this Court Kuldip Kumar Vs. Uttar Hryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another reported as 2008 (2) SCT 254 decided on 12.3.2008 and Sudha Rani Vs. State of Haryana and others reported as 2008 (2) SCT 547). This Court vide order dated 2.4.2009 in CWP No.5335 of 2009 has referred to a Larger Bench the issue “as to which rules would be applicable in a case where dependents of deceased Government employees seek compassionate relief.” C.O.C.P.No.1656 of 2009 4 In view of the aforesaid debatable issue, I am not inclined to take cognizance of the present petition. Dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to seek any other remedy available to him in accordance with law. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) 10.9.2009 Judge AS