Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anu Rani vs State Of Haryana on 26 November, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 2310 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 2310 of 2010
Date of Decision : November 26, 2012
Anu Rani
.... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. D.S.Rawat, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana,
for the respondent.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 11.03.2008 (Annexure P-4), vide which the claim of the petitioner for monthly ex-gratia financial assistance stands rejected.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Political Science in Government Senior Secondary School, Muana, Jind, on 10.12.2004, which post he joined on 11.12.2004. On 30.03.2006, unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died in an accident CWP No. 2310 of 2010 2 leaving behind the petitioner and two minor school going children. Petitioner and her two children were fully dependent upon him and with no source of income, petitioner applied for appointment on 26.06.2006 on compassionate grounds under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as '2005 Rules'). The claim of the petitioner was considered under the 2006 Rules as in the meanwhile, vide notification dated 01.08.2006, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as '2006 Rules') came into force, under which the 2005 Rules were repealed. In Rule 6, it was mentioned that all pending cases of ex-gratia assistance shall be covered under the new rules. However, the families were given an option to opt for the lump-sum ex-gratia grant provided under the Rules 2003 or 2005, as the case may be, in lieu of monthly financial assistance as provided under the 2006 Rules. Petitioner, the counsel contends, is asserting her claim for the grant of fixed monthly financial assistance as provided under the 2006 Rules, which claim has been rejected by the respondents vide the impugned order dated 11.03.2008 (Annexure P-4). He contends that the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the light of the specific provisions contained in Rule 6 as also Rule 8 of the 2006 Rules is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 2310 of 2010 3 the case of Darshana Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012 (3) RSJ 469 to support his contention, wherein this Court had, in similar facts and circumstances, allowed the claim, as has been made by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Krishna Kumari vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012 (2) SCT 736, the claim of the petitioner has to be considered under the 2005 Rules. As per the said Rules, the petitioner does not fulfil the requisite qualifications. He has referred to Rule 3 (d) of the 2005 Rules, to contend that the deceased Government employee has been defined as one who is appointed on regular basis and has served the Government for at least three years. Husband of the petitioner had only served for about 2 years and 3 months and, therefore, under the 2005 Rules also, the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable. His further contention is that the petitioner being ineligible under the then prevalent Rules on the date of death of her husband, the claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the respondents vide the impugned order dated 11.03.2008 (Annexure P-
4). Prayer for dismissal of the writ petition is, therefore, made.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case.
The facts are not in dispute and, therefore, are not referred to again for the sake of brevity. No doubt, the Full Bench CWP No. 2310 of 2010 4 judgment of this Court in Krishna Kumari's case (supra) as also the Rules/Instructions prevalent on the date of death of the deceased Government employee would be applicable to the claim of the dependents of the deceased Government employee but the Court was not seized of the situation where the subsequent Rules itself while repealing the earlier prevalent rule provided for an option to a dependent of the deceased Government employee for opting benefit under the earlier rules or the new rules which have come into force.
A similar situation was dealt with by this Court in CWP No. 20405 of 2010 titled as Saroj vs. Special Secretary, Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana and another, decided on 17.05.2012, wherein this Court, on consideration of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Krishna Kumari's case (supra) as also the effect and purpose of Rules 6 and 8 of the 2006 Rules, held as follows:-
"The first objection which has been taken by the respondents is that the 2006 Rules would not be applicable to the claim of the petitioner as her husband had died on 10.12.2005 whereas the 2006 Rules came into force with effect from 01.08.2006. This assertion is based on the Full Bench judgment in 'Krishna Kumari's case (supra) laying down the principle that the statutory rules/instructions prevalent on the date of the death of the deceased employee shall be applicable cannot be disputed. But the Full Bench has not considered Rule 6 CWP No. 2310 of 2010 5 of the 2006 Rules and therefore, this judgment cannot be said to be applicable to the case in hand where there is specific statutory rules providing for the applicability of the 2006 Rules to all pending claims under the 2003 and 2005 Rules. The Full Bench primarily dealt with the situation wherein employee who had earlier opted for the benefit under the statutory rules prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee had not been granted the benefit of those rules in the light of the subsequent rules coming into force which were not more beneficial than the rules in force at the time of death of the deceased employee. It is in this context that the Full Bench had held that the rules prevalent at the time of death of the employee would be applicable. Thus, the claim of the petitioner under the 2006 Rules will not be affected by the judgment of the Full Bench referred to above.
Rules 6 and 8 of 2006 Rules read as follows :-
"6. All pending cases of ex-gratia assistance shall be covered under the new rules. The calculation of the period and payment shall be made to such cases from the date of notification of these rules. However, the families will have the option to opt for the lump sum ex-gratia grant provided in the Rules 2003 or 2005, as the case may be, in lieu of the monthly financial assistance provided under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of CWP No. 2310 of 2010 6 the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006.
7. xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx
8. The Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Depandents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005, which are in force immediately before the commencement of these rules are hereby repealed;
Provided that families will have the option to opt for the lump sum ex-gratia grant provided in the rules 2003 or 2005, as the case may be, in lieu of the monthly financial assistance provided under these rules:-
Provided further that in all pending cases where the family exercises the option to receive the financial assistance under these rules, the calculation of the period and payment shall be made from the date of notification of these rules."
It is by now a settled and recognized Rule of Interpretation that every part of the statute must be interpreted keeping in the view the context in which it appears and the purpose of legislation. In Reserve Bank of India Versus Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and others, 1987(1) SCC 424, the Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted the importance of Rule of contextual interpretation in para-33 at page 450 held as follows :-
"33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. The are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, CWP No. 2310 of 2010 7 context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute- maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place."
Applying the principle as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reserve Bank India's case (supra), it is apparent from Rules 6 and 8 of the 2006 Rules that all pending cases of ex-gratia assistance on the date of coming into force of the 2006 Rules, i.e. 1.8.2006, were to be considered under the 2006 Rules. However, an option was given to the families of the claimants to opt for lump- sum ex-gratia grant which was available to them as CWP No. 2310 of 2010 8 provided under 2003 or 2005 Rules as the case may be in lieu of monthly financial assistance provided under the 2006 Rules. The 2005 Rules were repealed and option was given to the families of the deceased government employees to receive financial assistance under the 2006 Rules. Thus, the claim of the petitioner, which was pending on 1.8.2006 when the 2006 Rules came into force, was to be considered under the 2006 Rules as the petitioner had opted for the monthly financial assistance under the 2006 Rules. Respondents had thus rightly considered the claim of the petitioner under the 2006 Rules and held her entitled to the benefit of monthly financial assistance under the 2006 Rules, vide order dated 4.5.2007 (Annexure-P-1)."
In the light of the above, the claim, as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. In the light of Rules 6 and 8 of the 2006 Rules, as the petitioner had given option for the monthly financial assistance under these Rules, she would be entitled to consideration of her claim under the said rules, which supports the claim, as has been made by the petitioner in the present writ petition as her claim was pending with the respondents when 2006 Rules came into force.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 11.03.2008 (Annexure P-4) is hereby quashed.
CWP No. 2310 of 2010 9
Petitioner is held entitled to the grant of monthly financial assistance, as provided under Rule 5 of the 2006 Rules. Direction is issued to the respondents to calculate the amount, which she is entitled to, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and after adjusting the amount of family pension and other amounts, if any, disbursed to the petitioner, which the petitioner may not be entitled to under the 2006 Rules, be released to her within a further period of one month.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
November 26, 2012 JUDGE
pj