CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4130 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: July 17, 2009 Lekh Raj .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, a married son of Late Sunder Lal, who was working as a Peon with Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar, has filed this writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. Late Sunder Lal died on 10.5.2000 while he was working in the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sadhaura, where he was adjusted after abolition of the octroi since June 1999. The petitioner, being his son, applied for appointment on compassionate ground CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4130 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: within a month of his death. He also filed an affidavit, as required under the Rules then prevalent, maintaining that he was fully dependent upon the deceased father and was not having any movable or immovable property. Subsequently, he sent a representation on 14.2.2002, followed by another representation on 29.1.2003 but no action was taken. Claiming that policy instructions dated 8.5.1995, then prevalent, would regulate the compassionate appointment, as prayed for by the petitioner, he has made the present prayer for issuing appropriate writ, directing respondent No.2 to give compassionate appointment to him. The cause to seek compassionate appointment arose for the petitioner in the year 2000 but he has filed this writ petition during March 2007. In between, three policies governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground or compassionate assistance for the dependent deceased Government employees were formulated by the Government in the years 2003, 2005 and 2006. This Court, accordingly issued notice of motion in this case confined to the prayer for ex-gratia/financial assistance in terms of the policy framed by the State of Haryana. That being the limited scope, it is only required to be seen if the petitioner would be entitled to any financial assistance on compassionate ground in terms of the policies. Respondents have filed reply and would plead that the petitioner is not entitled to any compassionate assistance in terms of the rules so formulated. As per the respondents, Government had issued instructions on 25.3.1987, which would be applicable to the case of the petitioner as death of his father took place in 2002, prior CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4130 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: to issuance of Rules in the years 2003, 2005 and 2006. It is then disclosed that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid as ex-gratia in terms of the instructions dated 25.3.1987, which was the maximum amount permissible to the family of the deceased Government employee as per these instructions. This amount of Rs.25,000/- was released to the petitioner vide Cheque/DD No.831073 dated 14.2.2002 against a valid receipt annexed with the reply as Annexure R-II. In this background, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any ex-gratia payment now under the new policies. The State counsel rather would contend that the petitioner has made an attempt to mislead the Court and in this regard would refer to an affidavit filed by him (Annexure P-2) where he has shown his status as unmarried being 28 years of age. In the subsequent communication addressed by the petitioner on 14.2.2002, he clearly stated that he was married. In order to ascertain the date of marriage, the petitioner was asked to file an affidavit by this court, which he did and this would show that the petitioner had married on 22.3.1996, much before the death of his father on 10.5.2000. It can, thus, be said that he had filed a false and misleading affidavit, when he described himself as an unmarried son of late employee. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that even married son was entitled to seek compassionate appointment in terms of policy instructions dated 25.3.1987 and that he had no reason to make a false affidavit, in my view, apparently is a stand which is an afterthought. Even otherwise, counsel for the petitioner could not offer much justification in response to the plea raised by the State counsel that the petitioner has not disclosed in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4130 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: the writ petition that he had received an ex-gratia payment of Rs.25,000/- which was the maximum amount payable in terms of the policy then applicable. It can, thus, be said that the petitioner has made an attempt to somehow mislead the Court to seek either compassionate appointment or compassionate assistance by saying that he is required to be paid a sum of Rs.5 lacs in terms of Rules framed in 2005 or at least Rs.2.5 lacs in terms of the Rules framed in 2003. Once the petitioner had accepted the ex-gratia payment of Rs.25,000/- in the year 2002, his case stood finalised. Subsequent attempt on his part to seek compassionate appointment or compassionate assistance under new rules is certainly an attempt to make a claim to which he is not entitled to. Desperate attempt on the part of the petitioner to seek support from the Division Bench decision of this Court in CWP No.15304 of 2006 is also misconceived. In this judgment, a clear view has been expressed that compassionate appointment in terms of executive instructions can not be sought as a matter of right and that rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution would regulate the appointment on compassionate ground would be applicable in all cases, which are pending when the rules were framed. The case of the petitioner was not pending, when the 2003 Rules or subsequent rules were framed. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. July 17, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE