C.W.P. No.18752 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.18752 of 2008 Date of Decision:18.05.2010 Miss Nisha Rani daughter of Shrimati Gyano Devi, resident of Gali No.O-C, Chaudhary Colony, Azad Nagar, Yamuna Nagar ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through the Director, Urban Development Haryana, Sector 17 Chandigarh and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. S.K. Sud, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Prashant Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction for compassionate appointment as per the policy spelt out under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, as applicable to the employees of the Municipal Committee. The contention of the petitioner is that her mother died in harness on 21.03.2005 and she being an unmarried daughter was wholly dependent on her mother. She was born on 03.11.1975 and when she made her application for grant of C.W.P. No.18752 of 2008 -2- assistance or employment under the 2003 Scheme, her claim was rejected on the ground that she was more than 25 years of age and as per Rule 3(e), which defines 'dependent' the unmarried daughter including an adopted daughter till she attained the age of 25 years subject to the proof of adoption as envisaged in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 would qualify for the assistance. The rejection was on the basis that she was more than 25 years of age at the time when her claim was required to be considered. 2. The petitioner submits that even the petitioner did not know that there had been an amendment of the minimum eligibility of age when through notification issued on 17.12.2004, the figures 25 were substituted for figures 30 occurring in Rule 3(c)(ii) & (iii). Consequently the petitioner states her claim to the benefit under the 2003 Rules bound to be favourably considered. 3. The written statement of the Municipal Committee is to the effect that Clause 3(e) speaks of eligibility to unmarried daughter below the age of 25 years and since the petitioner was more than 25 years at that time, it was not given. It has been also contended that the notification dated 17.12.2004 was not available in the office of the Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar and therefore, they were looking to appropriate direction from the Haryana Government. The Government-1st respondent themselves have not filed any counter to deny the contentions in the petition but the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would state that they adopt the written statement already filed by the 2nd respondent. 4. Under the circumstances, the only reference that is C.W.P. No.18752 of 2008 -3- possible is that the rejection has been made by the 2nd respondent on an erroneous ground that the petitioner was not entitled to consideration under the 2003 Rules. This stand has been taken by not taking into account the notification, which has been issued on 17.12.2004. 5. The Municipal Committee shall now examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the 2003 Rules read with the notification dated 17.12.2004 and take appropriate decision and communicate the same to offer to the petitioner either the compassionate appointment or the financial assistance as provided under the Rules. The decision shall be taken within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 6. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 18, 2010 Pankaj*