CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12436 OF 2009 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 18, 2009
Savitri Devi
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
A widow has filed this petition to seek relief of ex-gratia
amount of Rs.five lacs under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to
the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005
(for short “2005 Rules”)on account of death of her husband. She
herself is in the employment of Government. Question, thus, to be
seen is whether she would be entitled to seek this ex-gratia
compassionate assistance under the Rules or not.
Husband of the petitioner, Giarsi Lal, was employed as a
Class IV employee (Sweeper) in Police Department and was serving
at Police Line, Narnaul. He died on 24.2.2006, statedly after serving
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12436 OF 2009 :{ 2 }:
for about 54 years. The petitioner thereafter applied for job for her
son under ex-gratia scheme and in the alternative she asked for ex-
gratia assistance. The petitioner claims that she has made number of
rounds to the office of Superintendent of Police, Narnaul and had
even gone to the office of D.G.P., Haryana but has not got any
satisfactory reply. On 18.5.2006, the petitioner gave a written
application in the office of D.G.P. for grant of job under ex-gratia
scheme to her son. Neither the job has been given to the son of the
petitioner nor any ex-gratia benefit otherwise released in her favour.
The petitioner then served a legal notice for providing job on
compassionate ground or financial assistance, which has now been
replied on 19.2.2009. The petitioner has now been informed that she
is already employed with Municipal Council, Narnaul, and she, thus,
is not entitled to grant of job under ex-gratia scheme, her total
emoluments being 6987/-. The petitioner has accordingly impugned
this communication seeking direction for ex-gratia assistance of
Rs.five lacs.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents ought to have paid the financial assistance to the
petitioner as she would be entitled to the same in terms of Rule 4 of
2005 Rules. The counsel would refer to the provisions of Rule 4(1),
which makes a provision for preference of option to be furnished
within six months from the date of death of the Government
employee praying for either ex-gratia appointment on compassionate
ground or alternatively ex-gratia financial assistance to the family of
the deceased. The reading of this Rule would clearly show that ex-
gratia appointment on compassionate grounds to a member of the
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12436 OF 2009 :{ 3 }:
family is for one who was “completely dependent” on the deceased
employee and is in extreme financial distress due to the loss of the
deceased. Similar is the position for payment of ex-gratia financial
assistance which is in alternative to the ex-gratia appointment on
compassionate ground. The condition of extreme financial distress
due to the loss of deceased would equally apply for ex-gratia
compassionate financial assistance as is the requirement in case of
ex-gratia appointment on compassionate ground. Analysis of Rule
4.1 (a) and (b) would make it appear so, which is reproduced below:-
“(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”.
(b) ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the
family of the deceased, over and above, all other service
benefits like ex-gratia grant due to his/her family, to be
paid @ Rs.5(five) lacs in case of the family of the
deceased Government employee was of the age of 55
years or above, on the date of death); if the Government
employee dies at the age of 55 years or thereafter, his
family shall not be eligible for ex-gratia appointment.”
The key words are “is in extreme financial distress due to
loss of the deceased.”
This aspect would further be clear from the contents of
Rule 8, which regulates the criteria for eligibility under 2005 Rules.
This Rule says that the eligibility under these Rules is when the
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12436 OF 2009 :{ 4 }:
family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from
financial destitution and dependent upon the deceased/missing
Government employee. Thus, relief from financial destitution of the
dependents is the requirement and the underline aim being
immediate assistance to the family, which is indigent. The Rule has
further specified that the income of the family shall not exceed
Rs.6,000/- per month from all sources, other than family pension.
Obviously, it means that if income is more than this amount, the
family can not be taken to be indigent, which would deserve
immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. Specific
provision further is made in this Rule that where the spouse of the
deceased/missing Government employee is already in Government
service, then no other dependent member shall be eligible for
appointment or ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance.
In view of these specific provisions, there is hardly any
scope left to interpret the Rules as sought by the petitioner to see her
eligibility to receive this compassionate assistance. The submission
made by the counsel that the criteria of income, as referred to in Rule
8(b) is to be considered for the purpose of appointment and not for
grant of ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance, if accepted,
would certainly lead to doing violation to the provisions made in the
Rule which is worded in unambiguous and simple language. The
provisions of Rule 8(b) and Rule 8(d) would need to be read
together. It is so very clearly provided that when spouse of a
deceased Government employee is already in Government service,
then no dependent member shall be eligible either for appointment or
for ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance. For ready
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12436 OF 2009 :{ 5 }:
reference provisions of Rule 8 (a) to (d) are reproduced below:-
“(a) The family is indigent and deserves immediate
assistance for relief from financial destitution and
dependent upon the deceased/missing Government
employee.
(b) The monthly income of the family shall not exceed
Rs.6000/- per month, from all sources other than family
pension. For this purpose, the income of the entire family
of the deceased/missing Government employee will be
taken into account and not just the income of the
dependent who has applied for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
(c ) The applicant for appointment should be eligible
and suitable for the post in all respects under the
provisions of the relevant requirement rules.
(d) Where spouse of the deceased/missed
Government employee is already in Government
service, no other dependent member shall be eligible
for appointment or ex-gratia compassionate financial
assistance.”
In fact, the submission made by the counsel for the
petitioner would be against the very concept and the spirit behind the
enactment of these Rules. The object of Rules, as can be seen from
Rule 2, is to assist the family of the deceased/missing Government
employee in tiding over the emergency situation resulting from the
loss of bread earner by giving either of the options of ex-gratia
appointment or ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12436 OF 2009 :{ 6 }:
family. Once the spouse is in a Government service, the family would
not be in any emergent need or situation, which would normally result
from the loss of a bread earner as such a family would be having a
member who is earning and, thus, the family could not be termed to
be indigent which would deserve immediate assistance for any relief.
Incidentally, it may need a notice that 2005 Rules have since been
repealed on issuance of new Rules w.e.f 1.8.2006. The criteria as
laid down in Rule 8 would clearly rule out the eligibility of the
petitioner to receive this ex-gratia compassionate financial
assistance. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed in
limine.
August 18, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE