In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 5046 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 27, 2009 Smt. Kalawanti …Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Malik, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the vires of Rule 2(d)(ii) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (P-1) according to which ‘deceased Government employee’ means an employee who has served Government for at least 3 years. A further prayer for quashing order dated 9.10.2003 has been made whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of death of his husband, has been rejected on the ground that he had only one year nine months and four days service to his credit. It is conceded position that the husband of the petitioner was appointed on 13.10.1997 and died in harness on 16.7.1999. At C.W.P. No. 5046 of 2009 the time of his death he was working as an Assistant Lineman in the office of the Executive Engineer/O.P. Division, UHBVN, Narwana- respondent No. 3. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the ex-gratia scheme instead of grant of financial assistance of Rs. 2,50,000/-. However, her claim has been declined on the ground that her husband had served only for one year nine months and four days in the department, whereas the compassionate employment is only admissible to the dependents of those employees who have served the department for at least three years (P-4). The petitioner has assailed the impugned order primarily on the ground that her case could not have been considered under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, whereas it ought to be considered under the existing ex-gratia scheme of 1995 which was prevailing at the time of death of her husband on 16.7.1999. It has been claimed by the petitioner that the respondents have intentionally kept pending her case for a long time and finally taken the decision on 9.10.2003 when the 2003 Rules came into existence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record with their able assistance, we are of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is well settled that the compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of entry into service but it is only to help the surviving members of the family to overcome sudden financial crisis created by the death of bread winner, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. 2 C.W.P. No. 5046 of 2009 A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 3 SCC 394 and National Hydro Electric Power Corpn. v. Nanak Chand, (2004) 12 SCC 487. Moreover, the writ petition was filed in March 2009 i.e. after a delay of over 5 years. It cannot be concluded that the situation created by the death of husband of the petitioner is continuing. There is no ground to issue a direction to the respondents for giving her compassionate appointment. In view of above, this petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) October 27, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3