IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1176 of 2009
Date of decision: February 3, 2009
Smt. Sudesh Sharma ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. Gaurav Sethi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)
The husband of the petitioner who was working as
Assistant Line Man with the respondents died in service on
19.08.2003. At that time, Haryana Compassionate Assistance to
the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003
were in force. As per those rules, the petitioner’s son was
entitled to compassionate appointment. Admittedly, the name of
the petitioner’s son was put in the seniority list made for
providing compassionate appointment. However, before
compassionate appointment could actually be granted, the Rules
of 2003 were replaced by the Haryana Compassionate Assistance
to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules
2006 under which the provision of compassionate appointment
has been replaced with the scheme of providing monthly financial
CWP No.1176 of 2009 -2-
assistance/ one time grant. It may be noticed that during this
interregnum the Compassionate Assistance Rules of 2005 also held
the field for about one year.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner’s son is entitled for compassionate
appointment since at the time when her husband died, the Rules
of 2003 were in force. Alternatively learned counsel for the
petitioner has argued that if compassionate appointment cannot
be granted then at least her case should be dealt with under
Rules of 2006 i.e. at the time when the case was considered, but
that she could not be forced to take the option of taking one time
compensation under the 2003 or 2005 Rules.
With regard to the first contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, I put to her that there are Division
Bench judgment of this Court which would need to be harmonized
in order to give relief to the petitioner and that this process may
end up in delaying the case for ex-gratia relief.
In Lalita Sharma versus State of Haryana &
others bearing CWP No.6890 of 2007 decided on
11.07.2007, a Division Bench of this Court held as under:
“After hearing both the sides, the following
controversy is required to be resolved for the decision
of present Civil Writ Petition:
i) Whether the case of the petitioner i.e. Dependents
of the deceased Government employees for grant of
financial assistance under the schemes of 2003, 2005
& 2006 is made out on account of death of
Government employee?
CWP No.1176 of 2009 -3-
So far as the relief of financial assistance in
respect of dependent of Government employee who
died prior to 04.03.2003 is concerned, there was no
provision in any of the instructions/ policy issued by
the government for grant of financial assistance. So,
the Government employee who died prior to
04.03.2003, his/her dependents are not entitled to
compassionate assistance. However, the dependents
of Government employees whose bread earner died
after 04.03.2003, are entitled to financial assistance
under the schemes of 2003, 2005 & 2006 whichever is
applicable to the dependents provided they fulfil the
conditions laid down under the said schemes. There is
no reason for with-holding the relief of financial
assistance to the dependents of government employee
who died after 28.02.2003 in case their case is
covered under any of the schemes referred to above.
So, we have no hesitation in holding that in case the
government employee has died after 04.03.2003, in
that case, the petitioners are entitled to financial
assistance, according to the scheme applicable to
them, as discussed above.
Therefore, in the light of what has been
held above, the claim of the petitioners for grant of
compassionate appointment in all the above-said writ
petition stand declined. However, the respondents are
directed to make the payment of financial assistance
to the dependents in accordance with the schemes
applicable to them. These directions are available only
to the petitioners who fall within the ambit of definition
of dependents under the relevant schemes and are
otherwise found eligible according to the above noted
scheme.”
In Sheela Devi versus State of Haryana & others
CWP No.1176 of 2009 -4-
bearing CWP No.8844 of 2007 decided on 22.08.2008,
another Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
“We are unable to appreciate and accept the
stand taken by the respondents, whereas we find
substance in the averments made by the petitioner(s).
As noticed above the husband of the petitioner expired
on 11.10.2005 and the application for compassionate
appointment was moved on 24.10.2005. The said
application was to be considered under the then
prevalent Rules/Policy/Scheme. Admittedly, the same
has not been done in the present case and as such the
petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of being
considered under the applicable Rules/Policy/Scheme.
In these circumstances, we dispose of these
writ petitions and direct the respondents to consider
the claim of the petitioner(s) afresh in the light of
Instructions/Rules applicable at the time of death of
the government employee.”
In this view of the matter, counsel for the petitioner
has stated that he would press his alternative argument.
In my opinion, this is a justifiable request. It would be
only fair if the respondents are held down to the provisions of
2006 policy under which an option is to be granted to the family
to either accept one time relief or opt for monthly assistance.
In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off
with a direction to the respondents to grant option to the
petitioner to decide whether she wants lump sum assistance or
monthly assistance and, after the said option has been exercised
to release to the family the assistance opted. Needful be done
within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified
CWP No.1176 of 2009 -5-
copy of this order.
February 03, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE