JUDGMENT
K.C. Puri, J.
1. Premo Devi widow of Late Bani Singh has sought employment on compassionate ground and in the alternative financial assistance under Ex-gratia Scheme by quashing the orders dated 8.8.2005 (Annexure P-7) and 17.8.2005 (Annexure P-8).
2. The husband of the petitioner Bani Singh was working as Line Man under the respondents and he expired on 3.6.2000 while in service. The petitioner prayed to keep the post reserve for her elder grandson under the Ex-gratia Scheme as both her grandsons were minor. It is pleaded that the petitioner’s only son expired in 1997 and his wife got remarried. One of the grandsons of the petitioner is entitled to compassionate employment and in the alternative, the petitioner be awarded financial assistance. Her claim for compassionate employment was rejected on 18.6.2001 and her claim for financial assistance has been declined vide letter dated 8.8.2005 (Annexure P-7), under challenge.
3. So far as the relief claimed by the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, the same has been decline on 18.6.2001. The petitioner has not challenged the said order anywhere. Grandson does not fall within the definition of family as per guideline. In the authority reported as Ram Lal v. State of Haryana 2001(4) R.S.J. 781, it has been held that compassionate appointment to the minor son on attaining the age of majority cannot be entertain. The minor, who is not eligible for appointment at the time of death of deceased employee, cannot claim the right to seek appointment on becoming eligible subsequently.
4. In the authority reported as Mahipal v. State of Haryana 1999(2) R.S.J. 53, the point of granting compassionate employment to minor has been elaborately dealt with and declined.
5. The appointment on compassionate ground is back door entry in the service by surpassing the regular procedure for appointment. The underlying idea of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the aggrieved family. No legal right accrue for appointment on compassionate ground after death of employee. The petitioner herself was found to be overage and was not possessing the requisite qualifications when her claim for compassionate appointment was rejected in the year 2001. So the petitioner is also not entitled for compassionate employment of her grandson.
6. The other relief sought by the petitioner is in respect of grant of financial assistance under the Ex-gratia Scheme of 2003.
7. We have carefully considered the submission of the petitioner in this regard, but do not find any force in that submission. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the authority reported as Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana 2007(2) S.C.T. 457 and a Division Bench of our own High Court in the authority reported as Neeraj Malik v. State of Haryana 2007(1) R.S.J. 235 has held that the Policy at the time of death of the employee is to be taken into account while granting ex-gratia financial assistance. Subsequent instructions regarding the compassionate assistance cannot be looked into. There was no guideline to grant of financial assistance available at the time of the death of the husband of the petitioner. So, the petitioner is also not entitled to financial assistance.
In view of the above discussion, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.