CWP No.567 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.567 of 2007
Date of decision: August 8 , 2008
Smt.Anguri Devi and another
-----Petitioner
Vs.
The Sate of Haryana and others
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. YP Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl.A.G. Haryana for the State.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
1. This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 5.1.2006
Annexure P.2 and letter dated 21.4.2006 Annexure P.4 and seeks a
direction to appoint petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds.
2. Case of the petitioners is that Udey Singh, father of
petitioner No.2 was employed as Class IV employee who died in
harness on 18.5.1999. Demand for compassionate appointment was
made which was not granted. Instead, payment of Rs.2.50 lacs was
offered as financial assistance.
CWP No.567 of 2007 2
3. Case of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that compassionate
policy of the Haryana Government was not applicable to the said
respondents. In any case, as per policy Annexure R3/2, applicable
to the respondent Sugar Mills, compassionate appointment could
not be given for want of a vacancy. It is also stated that the
concerned employee had already crossed the age of 55 in which
case only financial assistant of Rs.2.50 lacs was payable.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per
instructions Annexure P.1 dated 8.5.1995, compassionate
appointment was required to be given irrespective of availability of
vacancy. New instructions in the year 2003 which provided for
requirement of vacancy will not apply to death prior to the policy.
Reliance was placed on judgments of this Court in Neeraj Malik
v. State of Haryana and others, 2007(1) RSJ 235 and Surinder
Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1996(2) SLR 230 and
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar v.
State of Haryana and others, 2006(13) SCALE 658,
to submit that the case of the petitioner was required to be
considered in the light of instructions of 1995.
6. A perusal of instructions dated 8.5.1995 Annexure P.1
shows that the same are applicable only to employees of the State
Government. The deceased was an employee of Cooperative Sugar
CWP No.567 of 2007 3
Mill and not employee of the State Government. The judgments
relied upon are, thus, not attracted to the employees of the
Cooperative Societies who were not employees of the State
Government.
7. We do not find any ground to entertain this petition.
8. We, however, record the statement of learned counsel
for the contesting respondents that financial assistance of Rs.2.50
lacs will be given to the petitioners within one month from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. The writ petition is disposed of.
Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
August 8 , 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
'gs' Judge