IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14805 of 2010 Date of decision: 04.04.2011 Anoop Singh ...Petitioner Versus Utar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Krishan K. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The father of the petitioner, an employee of respondent/Board, had joined the service in the year 1999. He breathed his last on 03.08.2005 while working as Lineman on regular basis. On 16.11.2005, the mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and the case was sent to the competent authority. The claim was rejected on 09.09.2009 on the ground that new compassionate appointment rules are enforced and the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed this writ petition on various ground. The respondents have filed reply stating therein that the petitioner has no legal right and, thus, is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court. It is stated that the petitioner did not fulfill the educational qualification of 10+2 for being appointed to the post of Civil Writ Petition No. 14805 of 2010 -2- LDC. The name of the petitioner had not come for compassionate appointment under 5% quota fixed for compassionate appointment and so he could not be given appointment. I find this stand to be at variance with the response given to the request of the petitioner made for compassionate appointment. In the order impugned in the writ petition, the respondents have denied the claim of ex-gratia appointment on the ground that the rules framed in the year 2006, which came into force w.e.f. 01.08.2006, would contain total ban on compassionate appointment under ex-gratia scheme except pay and allowances with the last pay drawn by the deceased, so the compassionate appointment is not permissible. It is also stated that in pending cases, the family of the deceased is entitled to lump sum cash financial assistance and in this background the petitioner is held entitled to cash financial assistance of ` 2.50 lakhs only. Mr. R.K. Malik on the other hand submits that the rules framed in the year 2006 gives a discretion to a person to either opt for monthly financial assistance or for lump sum financial assistance either under 2003 or 2005 Rules. This issue has already been considered by this Court in number of cases and it has been held that the pending cases are regulated by Rule 6 of 2006 Rules. Since the petitioner has opted for grant of monthly compassionate assistance in terms of 2006 Rules, which clearly are attracted in this case, the case is made out for issuing direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of observations made above and grant him monthly financial assistance in terms of 2006 Rules. Let the needful be done within a period of two months from Civil Writ Petition No. 14805 of 2010 -3- the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount due shall be disbursed to the petitioner within this period. The balance amount due, may be released after deducting the family pension paid to the petitioner. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. April 04, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE