IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12704 of 2007 Date of decision: May 13, 2008 Parveen Kumar ....petitioner versus State of Haryana & Others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Mr.V.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5. --- HEMANT GUPTA,J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-8, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected and instead offer was given to opt for financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lacs. Shri Umed Singh, father of the petitioner died on 19th January,2003, while working as Lineman with Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Nigam'). The petitioner as dependent of the deceased-employee sought appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of Haryana Compassionate Assistants to the Dependent of the Deceased Government Employee Rules-2003(hereinafter referred to as '2003 Rules'). The said Rule contemplate that maximum of 5% of the sanctioned posts falling under direct recruitment quota in Group 'C' and 'D' can be filled up from amongst the dependents of the employee. Though, initially it was conveyed that the name of the petitioner has been kept in the list of the candidates eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds but on 27th December, 2005, vide Annexure P-3, the mother of the Contd.... Civil Writ Petition No.12704 of 2007 -2- petitioner was informed that if the employment case is not finalized within a period of three years from the date of death of the employee, the claim of the petitioner for grant of ex-gratia financial assistance for Rs.2.5 lacs will be considered. Subsequently, vide Annexure R-4 dated 21st April, 2006, the mother of the petitioner was informed that the validity of the seniority list of the candidates seeking appointment on compassionate ground has expired on 31.03.2006 and the turn of the case of the petitioner for appointment did not mature, therefore, the mother of the petitioner can opt for financial assistance. Instead of giving option for cash financial assistance, the petitioner served a notice dated 19th April, 2007 and in response to such notice, the communication Annexure P-8, dated 23rd July, 2007 was addressed to the counsel for the petitioner. It may be noticed that on 07.09.2006 Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules,2006(hereinafter referred to as '2006 Rules') were adopted by the Nigam. In 2006 Rules, the provision for giving appointment on compassionate ground was dispensed with and all pending cases were ordered to be disposed of so as to grant cash financial assistance in terms of the aforesaid Rules or for grant of financial assistance in terms of 2003 Rules. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.15304 of 2006, 'Jagdish Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam and another', decided on 26.02.2008 and in Civil Writ Petition No.6005 of 2007, 'Kuldip Kumar versus Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam and another', decided on 12.03.2008, has considered the various judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that the petitioner has no right to seek appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the instructions applicable on the date of death of deceased employee. The consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right. The object of offering employment on compassionate ground is only to enable the family to get over the financial crises which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner. Contd.... Civil Writ Petition No.12704 of 2007 -3- In Civil Writ Petition No.15156 of 2006, 'Mukesh versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others' we have upheld an option given to the petitioner for grant of financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs prior to the commencement of 2006 Rules. It has been held that after the expiry of validity of seniority list, the respondents are justified in law in offering ex-gratia financial assistance. The 2003 Rules contemplate preparation of seniority list of the eligible candidates for appointment on compassionate ground and that validity of such seniority list was to remain for a period of 3 years. The petitioner could not be offered appointment on compassionate ground in view of the placement of his name in the seniority list so prepared. Therefore, after expiry of the validity of such seniority list, the respondents are justified in law in offering cash ex-gratia financial assistance in terms of Rule 6 of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 framed after repealing earlier Rules. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the communication dated 21st April,2006, Annexure R-4, or the communication dated 23.07.2007, Annexure P-8 whereby an option has been sought from the petitioner for financial assistance, which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition stands dismissed. However, on submission of the option by the petitioner, the respondents shall make the payment of ex-gratia financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs within one month. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE May 13,2008 neenu