Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ganga Devi vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 May, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 16726 of 2011
Date of Decision : 22.5.2012
Ganga Devi ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. Parvesh Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 02.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the District Education Officer, Karnal- Respondent No.3 and the order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Commissioner and Director General, School Education, Haryana- Respondent No.2, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of monthly financial assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as '2006 Rules') on the ground that the claim of the petitioner is covered under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as '2005 Rules') and the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the 2006 Rules.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the husband of the petitioner late Shri Ranbir Singh was working as a Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar with the respondents when he during harness expired on 03.06.2006. Petitioner applied for grant of financial assistance under the 2005 Rules and the same CWP No. 16726 of 2011 -2- was forwarded by the Principal of the school where the husband of the petitioner was serving under the District Education Officer, Karnal- Respondent No.3. He contends that with the coming into force of the 2006 Rules with effect from 01.08.2006, petitioner was entitled to the benefit as per these rules which the respondents have denied to her vide the impugned orders. Reference has been made to Rules 6 and 8 of the 2006 Rules, according to which all pending cases were to be duly considered and decided under the 2006 Rules. He accordingly, contends that the impugned orders cannot sustain as the same are in violation of the 2006 Rules. Accordingly, he prays that the present writ petition be allowed.
Counsel for the respondents submits that on the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner i.e. 03.06.2006, the 2005 Rules were in force and therefore, the claim of the petitioner would be governed by the said rules. This he contends on the basis of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 4303 of 2009 titled as Krishna Kumari Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 20.4.2012 He, however, could not dispute the fact that on the date when the application was submitted by the petitioner and the same was forwarded by the Principal of the school, the 2006 Rules had come into force and therefore, the claim of the petitioner was pending under the 2006 Rules. Further arguments has been raised by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner herself is working and is a Government employee and therefore, is not entitled to the benefit of financial assistance under the 2006 Rules. He prays for rejection of the writ petition on these grounds.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
CWP No. 16726 of 2011 -3-
In the light of the fact that the claim of the petitioner became due on 25.08.2006 and it was pending with the respondents and therefore, the claim of the petitioner was required to be considered and decided under the 2006 Rules, is an issue which was dealt with by this Court in CWP No. 20405 of 2010 titled as Saroj Versus Special Secretary, Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana and another, decided on 17.5.2012 wherein it was 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 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.CWP No. 16726 of 2011 -4-
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 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 CWP No. 16726 of 2011 -5- 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, 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 CWP No. 16726 of 2011 -6- was available to them as 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 view of the above, the contention of the counsel for respondents cannot be accepted and the claim is required to be considered and decided under the 2006 Rules.
An objection has been raised by the respondents in the reply that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of compassionate monthly financial assistance as income of the family of the petitioner from all sources was more than Rs. 6,000/- per month. Petitioner was working as a Sweeper-cum- Chowkidar with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited as a regular Class-IV employee and was drawing salary more than the said amount and therefore, she was not entitled to the benefit of the same. This contention of the respondents cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that in the case of Ashok Kumar, Assistant, who was working in the o/o District Education Officer, Karnal and expired on 3.4.2007, the benefit of the notification dated 1.8.2006 was granted to his wife Smt. Kusum Lata, who was working as a regular JBT teacher in Government School, Karnal. Compassionate monthly assistance under the 2006 Rules was sanctioned to her. There cannot be CWP No. 16726 of 2011 -7- different parameters while dealing with the similar nature of cases under the same instructions/rules. If such an action is resorted to, the same would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which mandates equality. It would not be out of way to mention here that no notification, rule or instruction has been referred to or produced at the time of arguments, which would justify the stand of the respondents dis-entitling the petitioner for grant of the benefit of compassionate monthly financial assistance under the 2006 Rules.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 2.11.2006 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the District Education Officer, Karnal-respondent No. 3 and the rejection order/letter dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Commissioner and Director General, School Education, Haryana- respondent No. 2 are hereby quashed. Petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of compassionate monthly financial assistance under the 2006 Rules.
Direction is issued to the respondents to release the benefit of compassionate monthly financial assistance to the petitioner from the date of coming into force of the 2006 Rules, i.e. 1.8.2006 as on the said date, the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit of compassionate monthly financial assistance was pending with the respondents. This benefit be released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Writ petition stands allowed, in above terms.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 22.5.2012 adhikari/sjks