Roshini Devi vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 February, 2009

CWP NO.665 of 2008 (O&M)                                   -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                       CWP No.665 of 2008 (O&M)
                                       Decided on : 20.02.2009


Roshini Devi
                                                                    ....Petitioner

                                  VERSUS

State of Haryana and others
                                                                 ....Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present:- Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate
for Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana

AJAY TEWARI J.

The husband of the petitioner died while in service on

31.10.2002. She applied for compassionate appointment on 14.11.2002.

Vide letter dated 21.03.2005, she was informed that since she was illiterate,

she could not be appointed but in the alternative, lump sum assistance of

Rs.2.5 lakh could be granted to her in case she opted for the same at that

stage. The petitioner insisted that she be given a job. As matters stand,

neither she was given a job nor the lump sum assistance, which has resulted

in the filing of this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his claim to the

grant of lump sum assistance under the 2003 policy which was offered to

the petitioner. Sh. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana has, however, justified

the denial on the ground that vide letter Annexure R-II, the petitioner

refused that lump sum assistance.

In my opinion, this would not be a good ground to deny her the
CWP NO.665 of 2008 (O&M) -2-

benefit since that was not unconditional refusal but the petitioner had

refused the lump sum claiming compassionate appointment. It would not lie

in the mouth of the respondents to urge that since the petitioner had refused

lump sum assistance, she would be debarred from claiming the same. It

should be noticed that the 2003 rules also envisaged consideration of

pending cases as per those rules.

In these circumstances, I find that the stand of the State-

respondents that they can now rescind their offer of one time lump sum

assistance to be unjustified.

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the lessor relief

now sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner is granted. The

respondents are directed to accept option of the petitioner for one time lump

sum assistance as per their letter dated 21.03.2005. The necessary benefits

be released to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

February 20, 2009                                 ( AJAY TEWARI )
ashish                                                 JUDGE