JUDGMENT
K.C. Puri, J.
1. This is a Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certioraris for quashing letter dated 23.5.2006 (Annexure P-6) as also for issuance of a writ in the. nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the son of the petitioner.
2. As per the case of the petitioner, her husband expired on 3.5.2004 during his service tenure with respondent No. 5. The petitioner moved an application to respondent no.5 by mentioning that her son was 16 years old and a prayer was also made to give him appointment on compassionate ground on his attaining the age of majority. Respondent No. 5 referred the application to respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 wrote a letter dated 29.7.2004 to respondent No. 5 mentioning that as per Haryana Government instructions, there were two options available to the son of deceased employee i.e. Sarwan Kumar. One option was the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar to be kept reserved for Kamal Kant son of late Shri Sarwan Kumar till the official attain the age of 18 years and the second option was to have financial assistance of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The petitioner on receiving the said letter dated 29.7.2004 on 2.8.2004, gave her option for appointment of her son on compassionate ground on attaining his age of majority. The respondents accepted the option of the petitioner. The son of the petitioner, Kamal Kant, attained the age of majority on 24.3.2006 and thereafter the petitioner moved the respondents for appointment of her son on compassionate ground. The respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 23.5.2006 rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment of her son on compassionate ground and held that the petitioner was entitled for only ex-gratia grant. The petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 4 declining service to her son being illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as violative of instructions/policy issued by the Government from time to time for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is stated that the Government of Haryana has issued instructions dated 3.11.1988, Annexure P-7, in which it was mentioned that the dependent of the deceased is entitled for compassionate appointment on attaining the age of 17 years. The said instructions were adopted by the respondent-department. The son of the petitioner possesses necessary qualification for appointment to the post of Peon. The petitioner is a poor lady and after the death of her husband in the year 2004, she has a miserable life with her six children, out of which four are girls and two are sons. The Government of Haryana has issued new policy, vide notification dated 28.2.2003, wherein it is laid down that the dependents of the deceased government employee shall give in writing the preference within three years of the death of the government employee, for ex-gratia appointment on compassionate ground, due to extreme financial distress on account of loss of deceased or ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
3. On put to notice, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that new Government notification dated 3.8.2006 has come into force regarding ex-gratia appointment and according to that policy all the pending cases have to be decided as per that notification. According to Rule 6 of the said notification, all pending cases of ex-gratia assistance shall be covered under the new Rules and the families will have the option to opt for lump-sum ex-gratia grant provided in Rule of 2003 or 2005, as the case may be, in lieu of monthly financial assistance provided under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependent of the deceased government employee. Minor dependent, as a matter of right, has no right to appointment on attaining the age of majority in view of case reported as Mahipal v. State of Haryana 1999(2) R.S.J. 53. This Hon’ble Court in the case reported as Ram Lal v. State of Haryana 2001(4) R.S.J. 781 has held that there is no vested right to seek appointment on compassionate ground. On merit, it is admitted that Sarwan Kumar was the employee of respondent No. 5. It is also admitted that he expired on 3.5.2004 and the Government Rules, dated 31.3.2003 were applicable. The grant of ex-gratia appointment it to be considered in accordance with latest notification dated 3.8.2006 and the request for appointment of Kamal Kant, son of the petitioner, has been rightly rejected in view of the amended policy.
4. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case. The controversy in the present writ is whether the petitioner’s son Kamal Kant, is entitled to compassionate appointment as a Peon and the claim of the petitioner for appointment of Kamal Kant has been rejected in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
5. It is not disputed that Sarwan Kumar was in employment of respondent No. 5 and he expired on 3.5.2004. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has given option for appointment of her son Kamal Kant on compassionate ground on the later attaining the age of majority. The case of the petitioner is that since the offer made by her for appointment of her son has been accepted and on that count, respondent No. 5 cannot back out from its acceptance of the offer of the petitioner. The Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the authority of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported as Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana 2007(2) S.T.C. page 457 and on the strength of the said authority, Shri Sandeep Goyal, counsel for the petitioner has contended that Rules of 2003, as mentioned in para No. 11 of the petition shall be applicable and Rules of 3.8.2006 cannot be made effective from retrospective date. As per record, Kamal Kant passed his matriculation examination on 12th May, 2004, while that examination was held in March, 2004. The rules applicable to the petitioner were announced on 28.2.2003. The relevant instructions are re-produced as under:
4(1) A dependent of the deceased/missing Government employee shall give in writing his/her preference of option, within 3 years from the dale of death of the Government employee, for one of the following:
(a) Ex-gratia appointment on compassionate grounds to a member of the family who was “completely dependent” on the deceased employee and is in extreme financial distress due to the loss of the deceased, namely, the Government employee, who dies in “service”.
Or
(b) ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family of the deceased, over and above all other benefits like ex-gratia grant due to his/her family, to be paid @ Rs. 2.5 lacs in case of the family of the deceased not opting for ex-gratia employment
(2) Exercise of option shall be permitted only once and shall not be changed once exercised.
The first controversy involved in the present writ petition is whether the rules applicable to the petitioner were that of 28.2.2003 or instructions dated 3.8.2006 would apply. The Hon’ble Apex Court in authority reported in Abhishek Kumar (supra) has held that instructions/guidelines prevalent on the date of death of an employee would be applicable regarding grant of compassionate employment, financial assistance. Similar view was taken in the authority reported in case Neeraj Malik v. State of Haryana 2007(1) Recent Services Judgments 234.
6. In this case, the death of husband of the petitioner, had taken place on 3.5.2004. Kamal Kant son of Sarwan Kumar deceased was minor at that time and was not entitled to compassionate appointment on that day. In Mahipal’s case (supra), a Division Bench of our High Court has dealt with the aspect of grant of compassionate appointment of minor dependent of the deceased employee. In the ruling, it has been held that no vested right has accrued in favour of dependent employee to have compassionate employment. The future vacancy cannot be reserved for minor Kamal Kant. Kamal Kant became major after two years of the death of his father. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over crisis due to sudden demise of an employee. The grant of compassionate appointment is to ignore the meritorious person who would otherwise get employment through direct recruitment. Before granting compassionate appointment, the employer is duty bound to examine the financial position of the family. In authority reported in Ram Lal’s case (supra), it has been held that a minor who is not eligible for appointment cannot claim the right to seek appointment on becoming eligible subsequently.
7. The dependent or heir of the deceased can be appointed if eligible and if appointment is sought within a reasonable period. It has been further laid down in the said ruling that there could not be promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation when denial of question of compassionate appointment is on the principle of public policy. So, mere fact that the petitioner had made an application for appointment of Kama! Kant does not create estoppel against the respondents. So far as authority in Abhishek Kumar’s case is concerned, the said authority is distinguishable as in that case the applicant was not minor. In the rules dated 28.2.2003, no reservation for the minor for future employment has been made. In authority reported in case Jai Ram v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and the State of Haryana , it has been held where the petitioner receive family pension and the family could survive for a period of about three years, in that case, no appointment on compassionate ground can be ordered. As per policy dated 28.2.2003, the petitioner is entitled to ex-gratia assistance of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is without any merit and the same stand dismissed. However, the case of the petitioner for grant of financial assistance shall be considered according to policy dated 28.2.2003.