C.W.P.No.2290 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.2290 of 2007 Date of Decision : March 28, 2008 Mangat Ram .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana for the respondents. -.- 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 has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking to quash the orders dated 31.5.2006, Annexure P-18 and 12.6.2006, Annexure P-19, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was declined as no post meant for appointment on compassionate ground, was available. It is the case of the petitioner that his father namely Niranjan Lal Sharma was working with the respondent No.3-College as Peon. He C.W.P.No.2290 of 2007 2 died on 12.5.2001. The mother of the petitioner sought appointment of the petitioner as Peon on compassionate ground in terms of the policy prevalent at that time i.e, the policy dated 8.5.1995 and 31.8.1995. Subsequently, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the `2003 Rules'), came into force on 4.3.2003 for grant of compassionate appointment or compassionate financial assistance to the dependent members of the deceased employee. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.11.2003 for grant of compassionate appointment. After the exchange of some correspondence, a letter was addressed to the respondent No.3 on 15.12.2005, Annexure P-12, to get the formalities regarding appointment of the dependents of the deceased employee, completed. It is also stipulated in that communication to mention whether the applicant is in need of compassionate appointment or Rs.2.5 lacs. In response to the communication, Annexure P-12, the mother of the petitioner filed an affidavit on 19.12.2005 stating therein that she is not willing to get Rs.2.5 lacs against the ex-gratia scheme from the department and she will not raise any objection in this regard in future. After seeking an option from the petitioner, a communication was addressed on 31.5.2006, Annexure P-18, declining the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as no post for compassionate appointment was available. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that though the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined, but once it is found that the post is not available for C.W.P.No.2290 of 2007 3 appointment on compassionate ground, an option was required to be given by the respondents to the petitioner for grant of financial assistance in terms of Rule 6 (c) of the 2003 Rules. It is contended that an intimation is required to be given to the dependents of the deceased Government employee after the expiry of validity of the list prepared by the department so as to seek their option for grant of compassionate financial assistance. Since no option has been sought from the petitioner, therefore, the case of the petitioner for grant of financial assistance will be treated as pending case and, thus, the petitioner would be entitled to seek financial assistance in terms of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the `2006 Rules'). Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Civil Writ Petition No.6005 of 2007, titled as Kuldip Kumar Versus Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another, decided on 12.3.2008, wherein, in a case where the option was not sought from the dependents of the deceased Government employee after the expiry of the validity of the list, it was treated as pending case and the financial assistance in terms of the 2006 Rules was ordered to be granted to the dependents of the deceased employee. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Though the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on 31.5.2006 and communicated on 12.6.2006 i.e., before the commencement of 2006 Rules, but no opinion was sought from the dependents of the deceased Government employee so as to grant financial C.W.P.No.2290 of 2007 4 assistance in terms of the 2006 Rules. In Kuldip Kumar's case (supra), this Court directed the respondents to pay the financial assistance in terms of the 2006 Rules when the respondents were failed to consider the case of the dependents of the deceased Government employee for payment of ex-gratia financial assistance after declining the claim for appointment on compassionate ground. In the present case, though the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was declined prior to framing of the 2006 Rules w.e.f. 1.8.2006, but the respondents have not taken any decision in respect of grant of financial assistance either under the 2003 Rules or 2006 Rules. Therefore, in terms of Rules 6 & 8 of the 2006 Rules, the claim of the petitioner for grant of financial assistance is a pending case and thus, an option is required to be given to the petitioner for grant of financial assistance in terms of the 2006 Rules. In view of the above, we dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit his option within a period of one month from today so as to seek ex-gratia financial assistance in terms of the 2006 Rules. On receipt of such option, the respondents shall take final decision for payment of ex-gratia financial assistance to the petitioner within one month thereafter. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of . (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 28-03-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE