Mohit And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 13993 P&H

                                                              Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111493




CWP-17344-2022                                                                            - 1-
2023:PHHC:111493

244          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                           CWP-17344-2022
                                           DECIDED ON: 24th AUGUST, 2023

MOHIT AND OTHERS
                                                                      .....PETITIONERS

                                        VERSUS


STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present:     Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate for
             Mr. Deepak Vashishth, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Udit Garg, Advocate
             for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

             *****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India has been invoked for issuance of a writ in the nature of

mandamus for appointment of petitioner No.1 on the basis of ex-gratia policy

dated 02.08.2019 and also to grant compassionate financial

assistance/appointment to the dependent of the family member of a government

employee who died while in service.

2. The case of the petitioners as enumerated from the pleadings in the

writ petition is that the father of petitioners No.1 & 3 unfortunately died on

28.08.2008 while serving at UHBVNL. In support thereof, a photocopy of the

death certificate of the deceased employee is attached as Annexure P-1 in the

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111493

CWP-17344-2022 - 2-

2023:PHHC:111493

present petition. At the time of death of the deceased employee, the age of

petitioner No.1, who is the son of deceased employee, was 12 years whereas the

age of petitioner No.3, who is the daughter of the deceased employee, was 11

years, thus, none of them was eligible for compassionate appointment. It is further

the case of petitioners that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was accepted on account of

compassionate financial assistance by the wife of the deceased employee on

23.06.2009. Now petitioner No.1 has applied for compassionate appointment on

account of death of his father under the ex-gratia policy issued on 02.08.2019 and

submitted a representation in this regard on 04.09.2020 (Annexure P-3).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment

passed by this Court in CWP-23170-2018 titled as "Sudhir Vs. State of Haryana

and others". The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

" It is indeed a very unfortunate case where the petitioner had already lost his mother. He thereafter lost his father who was in government service when the petitioner barely 9 years of age. It would, thus, also be equitable that the petitioner be. considered for compassionate appointment in terms of the Rules.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The case of petitioner would be considered for compassionate appointment in terms of 2003 Rules. The delay in applying stands condoned. The needful shall be done within two months. In the event of petitioner being offered appointment on compassionate ground, he would reimburse his share of ex-gratia amount which he had received."

4. In the present case, notice of motion was issued on 24.08.2022 by

this Court considering the sole assertion raised at that time that only Rs.25000/-

has been accepted by petitioner No.2 who is the mother petitioners No.1 & 3 who

were minor at that time.

5. A short reply by way of an affidavit Sh. Joginder Singh, Executive

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111493

CWP-17344-2022 - 3-

2023:PHHC:111493

Engineer was filed wherein in para 5 has been categorically recorded that a sum

of Rs.25,000/- ex-gratia amount was sanctioned vide CE/OP Rohtak memo

No.312 dated 23.06.2009, which has been accepted by petitioner No.2 in

particular. The attention of this Court has also drawn to the office order No.129

dated 09.03.2019 (Annexure R-1) whereby it was ordered that in terms of

provision contained in the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents

of deceased Government Employees Rules 2006 adopted by the UHBVNL vide

memo No. Ch.86/UH/Pen/Loose dated 07.09.2006 and memo No.

Ch.98/UH/Pen/Loose dated 13.03.2007, sanction was accorded for the grant of

compassionate assistance by way of ex-gratia monthly assistance in favour of

petitioner No.2-Nirmal Saini who is wife of Late Sh. Sunil Kumar, LDC which

shall be continue on monthly basis equal to the pay and other allowances drawn

by the deceased in normal course. Apart from that the family of the deceased shall

be eligible for family pension as per rules after completion of superannuation

period.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 contended that the policy

dated 02.08.2019 (Annexure P-2) relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to

the case of the petitioners whose claim already stands settled as per the Haryana

Compassionate Assistance, Rules 2006.

7. In view of the above submissions 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 it has been held that

compassionate appointment 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

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111493

CWP-17344-2022 - 4-

2023:PHHC:111493

any delay or laches on the part of the petitioner.

8. Hence, no ground is made out for compassionate

appointment/financial assistance, since the basic principle of granting any

financial assistance or the compassionate appointment to the family of deceased is

to provide help in meeting out hardship on account of untimely death of the

employee.

9. Considering the judgments wherein Compassionate Financial

Assistance or appointment has been made available under various schemes from

time to time by the State government. In the present case, the petitioners have

already availed the benefits as applicable to them as per 2006 rules and now they

cannot be permitted to avail the benefits under the new 2019 policy which

explicitly bars the case of the petitioners.

10. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any merit in

the present petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

                                                           (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
     th
24 AUGUST, 2023                                                   JUDGE
sham

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




                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111493

                                      4 of 4