CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13106 OF 2010 :{ 1 }:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 06, 2010

Darshna Devi

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRESENT:

Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

Husband of the petitioner died on 15.2.2001 while he was

working as Assistant Treasurer at Guhla in Treasury and Accounts

Department, Haryana. In response to an application made, son of

the petitioner was offered a post of Peon on 29.1.2004. He did not

accept the same as he considered himself entitled to for a post of

Clerk, which was one step lower than the post held by his late father.

The petitioner accordingly made a request on 10.9.2004 to the

respondents to appoint her son to the post of Clerk under an ex-

gratia scheme as per the Rules then prevalent. The respondents, in

response, required the son of the petitioner to join the post by

11.11.2004 with a warning that otherwise the appointment would be

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13106 OF 2010 :{ 2 }:

cancelled. The son of the petitioner did not join the post as offered

even thereafter. Instead, the petitioner asked for payment of sum of

`2,50,000/- as ex-gratia payment under the Scheme. Thereafter, she

made various representations but did not receive any response till

June 2007. She has accordingly now filed this writ petition to seek

compassionate assistance under Haryana Compassionate

Assistance to Dependents of Government Employees Rules, 2006

on the ground that all pending cases are to be considered under

2006 Rules in term of Rule 6 of the said Rules.

The Haryana Government has formulated Rules for grant

of compassionate assistance to the dependents of the deceased

Government employee, which have undergone change from time to

time. The husband of the petitioner died in the year 2001 and her son

was offered a job of Peon on 29.1.2004. Obviously, it was under the

Rules framed in the year 2003, which made a provision for grant of

appointment on compassionate basis or in the alternative for

payment of sum of ` 2,50,000/- as compassionate assistance. The

son of the petitioner was offered a job of Peon, which he did not

accept. The compassionate appointment/ compassionate assistance

is primarily meant to help the family to tide over loss of bread winner,

which would be the need on account of death of an employee. Once

the offer of appointment was made, which was not accepted, it would

obviously mean that in fact the petitioner or her son was not in need

of a job so urgently or on the basis of a compassion to tied over any

financial crises that the family might have faced on account of death

of a bread earner.

After refusing the offer of a job, the petitioner sought a

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13106 OF 2010 :{ 3 }:

payment of ` 2,50,000/- as ex-gratia payment. The Government was

justified in declining this prayer, once the offer of job as made to son

of the petitioner was not accepted. If the petitioner or her son was

really in a need of job or money, then he can be expected to accept

the offer and then agitate for appointment as Clerk if that was his

right. Subsequently, however, the Rule was changed in the year

2005 followed by another change in Rules in the year 2006. Now the

petitioner is seeking compassionate assistance under 2006 Rules.

No doubt, Rule 6 makes a provision for applicability of 2006 Rules to

all pending cases but the case of the petitioner or her son can not be

treated as a pending case. The case for appointment was finalised in

the year 2004 once th