Bimla Devi vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11453 P&H

                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105067




CWP-3492-2022                                                                      -1-

239                                                   2023:PHHC:105067

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CWP-3492-2022
                                        DECIDED ON:01.08.2023

BIMLA DEVI                                                          .....PETITIONER
                                       VERSUS

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD & ORS.
                                          .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:     Mr. Shivam Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Sehej Sandhawalia, Advocate for respondents.

             *****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226/227

of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondents to release the

amount to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000 as financial Assistance As per Haryana

Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employee's

Rules,2003 with 18% interest per annum on account of death of the only bread

earner of the family.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that husband of the

petitioner was appointed as Assistant Line Man on 30.10.2000 and has expired due

to electric accident occurred on duty. Thereafter, petitioner applied for

compassionate appointment for her son namely Sunil Kumar as per ex gratia policy

applicable at the time of death. In the meantime on 28.02.2003, the State

Government introduced Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of

Deceased Government Employee Rules, 2003 and decided to give ex gratia

appointment or lump sum ex gratia financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lakhs to the family

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105067

of the deceased Government employee, if the appointment could not be given due to

any reason.

3. He further contends that that the son of the petitioner made several

representations but the respondents kept on avoiding the matter on one pretext or

other.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has asserted that the family

pension was released to the petitioner vide PPO No. 125, dated 04.05.2001, as is

evident from Annexure R-1. It is further asserted that a civil suit filed by the son of

the petitioner for grant of relief of compassionate appointment under ex-gratia

scheme already stands dismissed vide judgment dated 31.08.2013 (Annexure R-1)

and 09.08.2017 (Annexure R-3). He further assists the court by referring to his

written reply wherein it has been specifically stated in para 3 that the petitioner

approached the respondents on 05.08.2020 for the grant of financial assistance and

due some lacuna in the application the same could not be processed and the same

was intimated to the petitioner in the same year. Moreover the petitioner submitted

her affidavit dated 27.04.2022 in the office of respondent on 29.04.2022.and

thereafter by doing required formalities respondents authorities handed over the

cheque dated 26.07.2022 amounting to Rs.2,50,000 to the petitioner, thus there is no

delay on the part of the respondents and petitioner is not entitled for any interest as

claimed by her in the present petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for respective parties.

6. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure

from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a

particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment

being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception

to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105067

objectives, i.e., (i) to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden

financial crisis. (ii) Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of

recruitment.

7. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the

public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not

deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to

get over the sudden financial crisis. Since, compassionate appointment is not a

vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by

the dependants of the deceased Government employee as a consequences of his

death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of

of considerable period of time, since the death of the employee.

8. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138,

the Apex Court observed that the object of granting compassionate employment is

to enable the family of a deceased government employee to tide over the sudden

crisis by providing gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased

who is eligible for such employment. Mere death of an employee in harness does

not entitle his family to such source of livelihood; the Government or the public

authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the

deceased and only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the

family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible

member of the family, provided a scheme or rules provide for the same. This Court

further clarified in the said case that compassionate appointment is not a vested

right which can be exercised at any time after the death of a government servant.

The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces

at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, compassionate employment cannot

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105067

be claimed and offered after lapse of considerable amount of time and after the

crisis is overcome.

9. Coming back to the present case in hand wherein the petitioner has

been paid all the benefits including pension as well as financial assistance of Rs.

2,50,000 which she is claiming through this petition stands paid to the petitioner.

The another prayer regarding the interest part which she is claiming hold no ground

to be allowed as respondents authorities have specifically sated that the delay is on

the part of the petitioner in approaching respondents. Also, the principle underlying

the post of compassionate appointment is to meet the immediate financial hardship

faced by the family of the deceased employee which in present case to the mind to

court is not there as husband of the deceased passed in 2000 and ever since the

petitioner had survived with the living standards.

10. In view of the above observation made and in light of the judgment rendered by

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8842-8855 of 2022 titled as State of West

Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others, wherein the same principle as was held

in Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case (supra) has been reiterated that compassionate

appointment/ financial Assistance is not a vested right to be claimed under Article

226/277 of the Constitution of India and if it needs to be claimed then it has to be

made to the appropriate authorities within the reasonable time without there being

any delay or laches on the part of the petitioner.

11. Petition stands dismissed being devoid of merits.

                                                        (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
27.07.2023                                                    JUDGE
Meenu

Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes/No
Whether reportable               Yes/No




                                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105067

                                               4 of 4