RSA No. 4171 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No. 12056-C & 12055-C of 2011 and RSA No. 4171 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.10.2011 Director General, Health Services,Haryana and others … Appellants Versus Smt. Bimla and another … Respondents Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: CM No. 120556-C & 12055-C of 2011: For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal is condoned. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. RSA No. 4171 of 2011: One Dilbag Singh who was working as Peon in the office of Malaria Officer, Jind, had died on 24.11.2003 while in service. Plaintiff No.1, Bimla widow of Dilbagh Singh and his son Ishwar Singh (Plaintiff No.2) applied for appointment of plaintiff No.2 Ishwar Singh on compassionate grounds. Plaintiffs challenged in the suit the letter dated 5.10.2006 which was a policy decision taken by the Government to disburse ex-gratia amount in place of job. Defendants contested the suit stating that the plaintiff did not supply the requisite information despite letters to her dated 24.5.2005 and 17.6.2005. Thereafter, in the meantime, instructions dated 1.8.2006 came into existence on the basis of which the plaintiffs became entitled to get ex-gratia assistance but due to failure on the part of the plaintiffs in supplying the requisite information with regard to their financial position etc., job could not be provided to defendant No.2. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs was sought to be dismissed. Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, struck issue No.1 with regard to absorption of RSA No. 4171 of 2011 2 plaintiff No.2 as Peon in the government service of Health Department on compassionate grounds. Trial Court held that since Dilbag Singh had died in the year 2003, the rules existing at that time with regard to grant of compassionate appointment to the next kin of the deceased would govern the field of the present case and not the policy which nto force in the year 2006. In this regard, the trial Court placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2007(3) RSJ 121(SC), and thus, decreed the suit, directing the defendants to consider the case of plaintiff No.2 for appointment on compassionate grounds. The State feeling aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, went up in appeal which was dismissed on 10.11.2010 by the District Judge, Jind, affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal by the defendants. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that both the Courts below have erred in placing reliance upon the judgment in Abhishek Kumar’s case(supra) because that judgment is quite distinguishable. It is contended that in Abhishek Kumar’s case(supra), the appointment was rejected on the ground of non-availability of vacancy whereas in the present case, plaintiff No.2 is not entitled to get appointment because of change of policy during pendency of his case and no benefit of policy which was prevalent on 24.11.2003 could be given because the plaintiffs failed to submit their papers in time despite various reminders issued in that regard. The sole question of law which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether in the instant case, the policy which was in existence on 24.11.2003 when Dilbagh Singh had died, would operate or whether the policyt which came into existence on 1.8.2006 would have an over-riding effect in the facts of the present case. On going through the judgments of both the Courts below, it is evident that the plaintiffs had applied for appointment prior to coming into existence of policy dated 1.8.2006. It has come on record that even verification from District Basic Education Officer, Muzzafarnagar, sought by the defendants had been received on 20.4.2006. It is well established law that if a matter is pending prior to coming into existence of policy and the cause of action for that matter had arisen at earlier point of RSA No. 4171 of 2011 3 time, that has to be construed as per rules holding the field on the date of cause of action. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the cause of action surfaced on 24.11.2003 and thereafter, the plaintiffs applied and the matter of verification etc. was completed much prior to coming into force of policy dated 1.8.2006 and therefore, both the Courts below have rightly held that in view of the law laid down in Abhishek Kumar’s case(supra), the case of the plaintiffs would be considered in the light of the rules which were in operation in 2003 and not in the light of the policy which came into existence on 1.8.2006. Since the question of law as raised has been settled in view of Abhishek Kumar’s case(supra, there is no infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit stands dismissed in limine. October 19, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE