Allowed

Parkasho Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Aug 2010CWP/19113/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's son's claim for compassionate appointment based on 2003 Rules applicable after the employee's death. The Court held that subsequent rules cannot apply retrospectively. It quashed the rejection order and directed the department to consider the claim under the 1995 policy in force at the time.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.10.2003 quashed; respondents directed to consider claim for compassionate appointment under 1995 instructions within two months.

Parkasho Devi Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No.19113 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.08.2010

Parkasho Devi

........Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.......Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

¶9

Present: Mr. R.N.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. R.S.Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶11

Mr. Sidharth Batra, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

PERMOD KOHLI, J.

¶14

Petitioner is widow of Mam Chand, who was appointed as Assistant Lineman. Husband of the petitioner died on 06.06.2002, while in service. Petitioner, the widow of the deceased employee, applied for appointment of her son on compassionate grounds. It appears that certain enquiries were made by the department. The claim of the petitioner for appointment of her son was, however, rejected, vide memo dated 17.10.2003 (Annexure P-4) on the grounds that at the time of death, the deceased employee was 55 years, 8 months and 24 days of age and the claim for appointment is not covered under the rules. After rejection of the aforesaid claim, respondents sanctioned an amount of Rs.2.5 lacs as compassionate assistance, vide order dated 19.05.2004 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner made an application for rectification of the date of birth of her deceased husband. The petitioner pleaded that the date of birth of deceased employee was 14.11.1948 and not 12.08.1946 as recorded in the service book. As a matter of fact, the petitioner pleaded that two

¶15

-2-

¶16

CWP No.19113 of 2008

¶17

service-books were maintained in respect to the deceased employee and in one of the service book, the date of birth of deceased employee was recorded as 14.11.1948. In any case, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of her son has not been considered. It is further alleged that even the compassionate assistance sanctioned, has not been released.

¶18

Aggrieved of the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner's son for appointment, this petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.10.2003 and further direction to appoint the son of the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

¶19

Respondents in their reply have relied upon the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 2003 which inter-alia provides that where an employee dies on completion of 55 years of age, his dependents are not entitled to compassionate appointment.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Admittedly, at the time of death of the deceased employee, compassionate appointment policy dated 08.05.1995 was in operation. Under the aforesaid policy, there was no provision for grant of compassionate financial assistance and it had only provision for grant of compassionate appointment if the dependent of the deceased employee applies for employment within three years of the death of the employee. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment for her son within stipulated period. The embargo created for such appointment where the deceased employee was of 55 years age for the first time came to be incorporated only in the 2003 Rules. The claim of the petitioner has been denied applying the rules that came into operation after the death of the deceased employee.

¶22

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Abhishek Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others, 2007(2) SCT 457 has observed that the

¶23

CWP No.19113 of 2008

¶24

-3-

¶25

rules/instructions at the time of death of the employee are applicable. Relevant observations are as under:-

¶26

“Appellant herein had sought for appointment on compassionate grounds at a point of time when 2003 Rules were not in existence. His case, therefore, was required to be considered in terms of the Rules which were in existence in the year 2001. Evidently, in the State of Haryana a Statewise list is maintained. In terms of the said list so maintained by the State of Haryana, the appellant was entitled to obtain an appointment on compassionate grounds. He was offered such an appointment by the State. It was the District Magistrate who came on the way and refused to provide for the post.”

¶27

The ground on which the petitioner's claim for appointment of her son has been rejected was not in existence at the time of death of employee. It is also not in dispute that 2003 Rules are prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively. Respondents committed illegality in applying the subsequent government instructions/rules of 2003.

¶28

In view of the above factual and legal position, the impugned order dated 17.10.2003 (Annexure P-4) is hereby quashed. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of her son in accordance with 1995 Government instructions governing the field at the time of death of deceased employee within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶29

18.08.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE

¶30

NOTE: Whether to be referred to Reporter or not? Yes

Parkasho Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parkasho Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.L.Mehan & Ors. Vs Haryana Warehousing Corpn.& Ors.

Simran Bhalla Vs HUDA and Ors.

Housing Board Haryana Vs Rattan Singh and Ors.

Radhey Shyam Vs H.P.G.C.L & Ors.

Om Parkash and Ors. Vs M.D., D.H.B.V.N. Ltd. and Ors.

Shamay Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.