C.W.P.No.15156 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.15156 of 2006 Date of Decision : March 24, 2008 Mukesh .....Petitioner versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri R.S.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Aman Chaudhary, Advocate 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 challenge in the present writ petition is to the communication dated 10.4.2006, Annexure P-4, whereby option has been sought from the petitioner for grant of financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs. The father of the petitioner Shri Rajinder Parkash died on 12.10.2000 while working in the respondent Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the `Nigam'). The mother of the petitioner applied for appointment of the petitioner under ex-gratia scheme. On 10.4.2006, a communication Annexure P-4 was addressed to the mother of the petitioner to the effect that the case of appointment of the petitioner was placed in the seniority list of the Class-III/IV category and the validity C.W.P.No.15156 of 2006 2 of the said list has expired on 31.3.2006. As the turn of the petitioner for appointment against the 5% prescribed quota has not come up, therefore, an option was sought for payment of ex-gratia compensation of Rs.2.5 lacs. It is the said communication which has been challenged before this Court, inter alia, on the ground that father of the petitioner died on 12.10.2000 much prior to enforcement of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the `2003 Rules'). Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has to be governed by the instructions applicable on the date of death of the father of the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the case “Abhishek Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others, 2007 (3) R.S.J.-121” and “Neeraj Malik Versus State of Haryana and others, 2007 (1) RSJ-235”, to contend that compassionate appointment is to be given as per the policy applicable on the date of death of the employee. In reply, it has been pointed out that the State Government has framed the 2003 Rules which came into force w.e.f. 4.3.2003 and all the pending cases are to be dealt with as per these Rules. Since the case of the petitioner for appointment was pending on the date of notification, therefore, the case of the petitioner has to be considered in terms of the 2003 Rules only. Still further, it has been pointed out that the name of the petitioner was kept on the list of the eligible candidates for appointment on compassionate ground. The validity of such list expired on 31.3.2006, but the turn of the petitioner for appointment has not matured against the available post for such appointment. Thus, an option has been rightly sought C.W.P.No.15156 of 2006 3 from the petitioner for compassionate financial assistance. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.15304 of 2006, Jagdish Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam and another, decided on 26.2.2008, has considered Abhishek Kumar's case (supra) and various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court. It was 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 the deceased Government 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. It was held that it was necessary for the Authority to frame Rules, Regulations or to issue administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Neeraj Malik's case (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.7.2007 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18972 of 2006. The judgment in “Abhishek Kumar's case (supra) was on its own facts as even though the petitioner was offered appointment by the State, but it was the District Magistrate who refused to provide for the post. It was the facts of the case which led to the order passed. No principle of law has been enunciated on the basis of which it can be said that the Rules, which are in existence at the C.W.P.No.15156 of 2006 4 time of death of the employee, would be applicable. In the present case, on the date of death of the father of the petitioner, it was the executive instructions which were regulating the appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the Rules have been framed in terms of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India regulating the appointment on compassionate ground. After the Rules were framed, the petitioner cannot rely upon the executive instructions as the appointment on compassionate ground is not a right, but a concession given to the dependent members of the deceased family to tide over the financial crises. Therefore, 2003 Rules would be applicable to all cases which were pending when such Rules were framed. In fact, that is the specific provision of such Rules as well. Since the appointment on compassionate ground is not a right, but a concession, therefore, such concession has to be governed in terms of the Rules framed by the respondents. 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. C.W.P.No.15156 of 2006 5 Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the communication dated 10.4.2006, Annexure P-4 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 within one month from today, the respondents shall make the payment of ex-gratia financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs soon thereafter. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 24-03-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE