Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kailash And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007491
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
120
CWP-31872-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.01.2025
Kailash and another ...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :-Dr. (Mr.) Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated
14.08.2024 passed by the Civil Surgeon-respondent No.3, whereby the claim
of the petitioners for seeking compassionate appointment has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends
that late Ram Nath-husband of petitioner No.1 was appointed as Class-IV
employee (Ward Servant) by the Chief Medical Officer, Kurukshetra vide
order dated 22.05.1969. He contends that Ram Nath was served with a
notice of termination of services by the office of the Chief Medical Officer,
Kurukshetra vide memo No.8017-10 dated 20.11.1981 in violation of
fundamental principles of natural justice. The said notice was challenged by
way of Civil Suit No.1580 of 1984, which was decided vide judgment and
decreed dated 21.11.1984 in favour of the husband of petitioner No.1. The
operative part of the said judgment reads thus:-
"As a result of my discussion above, the suit of the plaintiff
succeed and the same is hereby decreed with costs declaring
the impugned order dated 20.11.1981 passed by Chief Medical
Officer, Kurukshetra to be illegal, against the rules of natural
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007491
120 CWP-31872-2024 (O&M)
justice, arbitrary, malafide and against the service rule and
provision of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The
plaintiff shall be deemed in service on full pay and allowance
from the date of passing the impugned order. Decree sheet be
prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room."
3. Civil Appeal No.13 of 1986 was thereafter preferred by the
respondent-Department before the District Judge, Kurukshetra which was
allowed vide judgment dated 10.04.1987 and the judgment and decree
passed by the Sub-Judge, IIIrd Class, Kurukshetra was set aside. Regular
Second Appeal No.2621 of 1987 preferred by the legal heirs of Ram Nath
was allowed in favour of the petitioner(s) vide order dated 02.08.2010.
There was, however, no compliance to the order passed by the High Court
and the pensionary benefits of the husband of petitioner No.1 were not
released. The said benefits were eventually released in favour of the
petitioners by respondent No.3 only in the year 2023 and that too without
any interest on delayed payment of the pensionary benefits. He further
contends that Ram Nath expired on 01.11.1985 and that no compensation or
compassionate appointment was extended by the respondents in favour of
petitioner No.1 or any other member of the family. Petitioner No.2 is the
grandson of petitioner No.1 and late Ram Nath. He holds the qualification of
Matriculation, 10+2 and a First Aid Certificate from St. John Ambulance
(India), Indian Red Cross Society. He falls in the Backward Class and is a
permanent resident of Haryana. It is submitted that since the petitioners
could not avail any of the benefits of financial assistance or compassionate
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007491
120 CWP-31872-2024 (O&M)
appointment on account of the ongoing dispute, a formal request of issuance
of compassionate appointment to petitioner No.2 was made on 22.09.2023.
He contends that as no decision was taken on the said representation, hence,
CWP-26239-2023 titled as Kailash and another Vs. State of Haryana and
others was filed by the petitioners before this Court which was disposed of
vide order dated 22.11.2023 directing the respondents to take a decision on
the representation. Pursuant thereto, the Civil Surgeon, Kaithal has passed
the order on 14.08.2024. The operative part of the same reads thus:-
"That the Husband of the petitioner no. 1 namely Ram
Nath was posted as C-IV in Health Department in District
Kaithal. He was terminated from job on 20.11.1981. However,
Ram Nath was reinstated on 21.11.1984 by the Court of Sub
Judge, Kurukshetra. Ram Nath had expired on 01.11.1985
while in job in Health Department in District Kaithal.
That no application by petitioner no. 1 was moved
before authorities to give the job as compassionate
appointment. Cooked up and Made up story has been
forwarded by petitioners in Annexure P-3. It is pertinent to
mention here that execution petition was also filed by
petitioners before Court of Civil Judge, Kurukshetra, but no
such pleas (Compassionate Appointment) were taken by
Decree Holders in execution petition. Later on this execution
petition was disposed of as fully satisfied by Hon'ble Court of
Civil Judge, Kurukshetra.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007491
120 CWP-31872-2024 (O&M)
That there is instructions from Chief Secretary, Govt of
Haryana and vide letter no. 16/21/88-6GS-II, dated
03.11.1988, cause of action for se3king compassionate
appointment is three years. This letter is clarification
regarding letter no. 16/21/84-3GS-II dated 09.09.1985 of
Govt. of Haryana. Present case is covered under this
instruction. Moreover, there is/was no such provision where
compassionate appointment is/was to be given to the grand
son of deceased employee, as grand, son does not fall under
the category of "Dependent" of the deceased employee as per
Haryana Govt. Ex-gratia Policy.
That Annexure P-3 bears no merits and same is
rejected. Therefore, I Dr. Renu Chawla, Civil Surgeon,
Kaithal reject the representation dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure
P-3) moved by petitioners. The decision dated 22.11.2023, CM
19731- CWP 2023 IN/AND CWP 26239-2023 (O&M) has
been complied with in letter and spirit."
4. It is evident from a perusal of the aforesaid operative part of the
order that the plea for compassionate appointment of petitioner No.2 was
rejected by the Civil Surgeon by making reference to the instructions issued
by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, issued vide letter No.16/21/88-
6GS-II dated 03.11.1988, as per which cause of action for seeking
compassionate appointment exists only for three years. The said letter is
clarification of earlier letter dated 09.09.1985. It has also been set out that
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007491
120 CWP-31872-2024 (O&M)
the petitioners never submitted any request for compassionate appointment
till the year 2023 notwithstanding that a period of nearly 38 years had
elapsed since the death of Ram Nath. It was also specifically recorded by
the Civil Surgeon that grandson does not fall in the category of "Dependent"
of the deceased employee as per the Haryana Government Ex.-Gratia Policy.
Hence, in view of both the said conditions, the representation was dismissed.
Aggrieved thereof, the instant petition has been filed.
5. Vide order dated 27.11.24, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners had sought time to produce on record relevant
instructions/policy to substantiate his argument that in place of
compassionate appointment, financial assistance can be given.
6. Even on resumed hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners has neither been able to refer to any instructions nor any
policy as would entitle the petitioner to any further financial assistance or to
indicate that the reasons given by the respondents while declining the
representation are misplaced or not based upon the correct interpretation of
the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana.
7. Under the given circumstances, I do not find that there is any
illegality, perversity or impropriety in the speaking order passed by the Civil
Surgeon, Kaithal. The instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed in
limine.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
20.01.2025 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
