Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Pushpa Devi on 13 October, 2025
LPA-92-2024 (O&M) -1-
215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-92-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.10.2025
State of Haryana and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Smt. Pushpa Devi ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Present: Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Mr. N.K. Vashist, Advocate
for respondent.
***
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)
1. The judgment of the learned Single Judge delivered in CWP-5441- 2017 dated 12.09.2023 is assailed in this appeal.
2. Learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, has issued a direction that the respondent-petitioner be paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- pursuant to Policy of the State, dated 27.11.2014.
3. Shorn off the unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the husband of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was employed as Superintendent in the office of the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2013. It appears that after his superannuation, the respondent's husband was granted contractual appointment as a Manager of the Mid-Day-Meal in the Department of Elementary 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 03:54:40 ::: LPA-92-2024 (O&M) -2- Education. While working as such, the respondent's husband died on 25.12.2015. It is in this context that the claim was constituted for providing compassionate financial assistance, which has since been allowed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, aggrieved the State is before us in the present appeal.
4. Learned State counsel contends that the Scheme had no applicability in the facts of the present case inasmuch as the husband of the respondent was in regular employment and was engaged in Mid-Day-Meal Scheme after having superannuated from the regular employment and therefore, the Scheme contained in the instructions dated 27.11.2014, has no applicability to the facts of the case.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the contractual employment offered to the husband of the respondent was not in continuation of his earlier appointment, but was a fresh contractual appointment and therefore, the respondent was entitled to ex gratia compassionate financial assistance.
6. From the facts placed on record, it is undisputed that the husband of the respondent was in regular employment of the State of Haryana and superannuated in the year 2013. The deceased employee was holding a pensionable post and therefore respondent, being his widow, is entitled to family pension.
7. The question that arises for our consideration is as to whether 'the 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 03:54:41 ::: LPA-92-2024 (O&M) -3- benefit of compassionate financial assistance vide instruction/Policy dated 27.11.2014, would be admissible to the respondent or not'?
8. Policy dated 27.11.2014, provides the rationale for grant of compassionate financial assistance. The relevant portion of the Policy reads as under:-
"Subject:- Policy for providing Compassionate financial assistance to the family of the deceased person working in Government Department/Boards/ Corporation/public undertakings under Haryana Government on Adhoc, Daily Wage, Contract basis including the persons working on contract basis through Service Providing Agency Sir/Madam, I am directed to Invite your attention on the subject cited above and to say that there being no policy for providing ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family of the deceased person employed in Government Departments/ Boards/ Corporations/public undertakings under Haryana Government on Adhoc, Daily Wage. Contract basis including the persons working on contract basis through Service Providing Agency. The State Government has considered this matter and decided to provide financial assistance to the tune of Rs 3.00 lacs to the family of a deceased person who was working in Government:
Department/Boards/Corporation/public undertakings under Haryana Government an Adhoc. Daily Wage, Contract basis including the persons working on contract basis through Service Providing Agency with the prior approval of the competent authority on the following guidelines:-
(i) These instructions shall come into force with effect from the date of issue of instructions.
(ii) Definitions: In these rules the context otherwise requires;
a) "Appointing authority" incans the Head of Department/competent Authority as the case may be, where the deceased person was working.
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 03:54:41 ::: LPA-92-2024 (O&M) -4-
b) "Compassionate financial assistance" means the financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 3.00 lacs, provided as ex-gratia assistance to the completely dependent members of the indigent family of the deceased.
9. Perusal of the aforesaid policy clearly reveals that the State intended to provide ex gratia compensation financial assistance to the family of the deceased persons employed in Government Department/Boards/ Corporation/public undertakings, who were engaged on adhoc, daily wage, contract basis etc. including through the service provider. The object of the Policy is to benefit those families whose bread earner was engaged on contractual basis or in adhoc or daily wage employment and was not entitled to other benefits, which are admissible to a regular Government employee. This Policy, apparently, will not have any applicability where a regular Government employee is engaged after superannuation on a contractual basis. This is particularly so as the family of such deceased employee would otherwise be entitled to appropriate protection in the form of family pension and other benefits. Clause (ii) b, aforesaid, refers to dependent of indigent family as being the person entitled to the benefit under the Scheme.
10. The policy dated 27.11.2014 is apparently intended to subserve the interests of those contractual or daily wage employees, who were otherwise not in receipt of benefits admissible to the regular Government employee. Therefore, when the deceased employee was otherwise in the regular Government employment and had superannuated, the benefits under the Policy dated 27.11.2014, could not have been extended. Learned Single Judge, while 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 03:54:41 ::: LPA-92-2024 (O&M) -5- dealing with the claim of the respondent, has gone on the literal interpretation of the Policy without considering the object for which the Policy itself was introduced.
11. The Policy provides compassionate financial assistance to the fully dependent members of a deceased person's indigent family. A family receiving family pension and other benefits ordinarily would not fall under the definition of an 'indigent family' and, therefore, not eligible for assistance under this Policy.
12. In such circumstances, the present Appeal deserves to succeed and is consequently allowed. The judgment dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.
13. It is however, provided that all benefits which are otherwise admissible to the widow on account of regular Government employment of the deceased employee would be extended to her, if not already given.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 13.10.2025 neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 03:54:41 :::