IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.12525 of 2011 Date of Decision:19.7.2011 Raj Kumari .... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. S.S. Hira, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The petitioner herein is seeking quashing of the order dated 20.1.2011 (P-3) and Order dated 28.4.2011 (P-5) whereby the claim of the petitioner for ex-gratia compassionate appointment of her elder son has been rejected. The respondents rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that since her husband's date of birth was dated 5.6.1955 and he died on 22.8.2010, he was 55 years and 2 months old at the time of his death. Therefore, the petitioner or her family members were not eligible for the ex-gratia compassionate appointment under the Haryana Cooperative Sugar Mills Employee Rules, 2005, except for ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance of Rs.5 lacs. The petitioner, accordingly, filed CWP No.2006 of 2011 in the High Court on the ground that as per Rule 18(1) of the notification dated 18.11.2005, any provision of these rules can be relaxed by the Government in case of extra-ordinary hardship to the family of C.W.P No.12525 of 2011 -2- deceased Government employee at the level of Chief Minister, Haryana. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 3.2.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to first approach the Chief Minister at the first instance and to enable her to file a representation before the Chief Minister. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted representation dated 10.2.2011 before the Chief Minister. However, her representation was rejected vide order dated 28.4.2011 on the ground that the deceased employee was more than 55 years of age and therefore, the family members of the deceased employee was not eligible for ex-gratia appointment. Whereas number of eligible persons claiming the available vacancies were more than the vacant posts. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, while impugning the same submitted that six vacancies were still available and rules should have been relaxed in her favour. Secondly, these six posts are likely to be arbitrarily given to other persons and that as per the financial position of the petitioner's family and taking into account that the deceased employee was suffering from cancer and died after prolong treatment leaving behind no source of income and nor any landed property, the family members of the deceased are entitled for the rules being relaxed in their favour. Heard. Rule 2 (iii) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Cooperative Sugar Mills Employees Rules, 2005, reads as under: C.W.P No.12525 of 2011 -3- “ (iii) ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee, who had attained the age of 55 years or more on the date of death, over and above all other service benefits, to be paid @ Rs.5.00 lacs. If the Sugar Mills employees dies at the age of 55 years or thereafter, his family shall not be eligible for ex-gratia appointment.” Thus, the husband of the petitioner being more than 55 years at the time of death, the family members of the deceased are not entitled to the compassionate appointment. The argument that the relaxation should have been granted in view of the Rule 18(1) of the notification dated 18.5.2011, has also no merit. It is evident from the perusal of Rule 18(1) of the notification dated 18.11.2005 reproduced below that the said relaxation is to be granted only in exceptional cases. Rule 18(1) of the notification dated 18.11.2005 reads thus: “As a special case in exceptional circumstances, any provision of these rules shall be released by the Government in the case of extra-ordinary hardship to the family of deceased Government employee at the level of Chief Minister, Haryana.” A perusal of the rejection order by the Chief Minister, Haryana, shows that against six available posts, there are 7 pending applications of eligible dependents of deceased employees. The eligible candidates have a better right over these posts than the family of the petitioner. These persons too have lost their only C.W.P No.12525 of 2011 -4- earning members and must be going through similar financial crisis. It is further evident from the said order that other similar situated persons like the present petitioner have also been denied ex-gratia appointment. The argument that the available six posts are likely to be arbitrarily given to other is vague and sheer imagination of the petitioner. Moreover, the department has very fairly conceded the claim of the petitioner qua Rs.5 lac lump sum towards financial assistance. As such, no fault can be found with the order dated 28.4.2011 passed by the Chief Minister refusing to exercise his discretion to relax the Rules. Thus, the family members of the deceased employee are not eligible for the ex-gratia compassionate appointment as per the Haryana Cooperative Sugar Mills Employee Rules, 2005 but are, however, held eligible to receive Rs.5 lac as ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in the above terms. 19.7.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE