Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak vs State Of Haryana & Others on 3 February, 2009
Author: Ajay Tewari
Bench: Ajay Tewari
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1728 of 2009
Date of decision: February 3, 2009
Deepak ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for claiming compassionate appointment in the place of his father who had died as far back as on 02.01.1993 when the petititoner was 6 years old. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that at that time the policy was of providing compassionate appointment. As per Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment. However, before compassionate appointment could actually be granted, the Rules of 2003 were replaced by the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules 2006 under which the provision of compassionate appointment has been replaced with the scheme of providing monthly financial CWP No.1728 of 2009 -2- assistance/ one time grant. It may be noticed that during this interregnum the Compassionate Assistance Rules of 2005 also held the field for about one year.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment since at the time when his father died, the Rules of 2003 were in force. Alternatively learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that if compassionate appointment cannot be granted then at least his case should be dealt with under Rules of 2006 i.e. at the time when the case was considered, but that he could not be forced to take the option of taking one time compensation under the 2003 or 2005 Rules.
With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I put to him that there are Division Bench judgments of this Court which would need to be harmonized in order to give relief to the petitioner and that this process may end up in delaying the case for ex-gratia relief.
In Lalita Sharma versus State of Haryana & others bearing CWP No.6890 of 2007 decided on 11.07.2007, a Division Bench of this Court held as under:
"After hearing both the sides, the following controversy is required to be resolved for the decision of present Civil Writ Petition:
i) Whether the case of the petitioner i.e. Dependents of the deceased Government employees for grant of financial assistance under the schemes of 2003, 2005 & 2006 is made out on account of death of Government employee?CWP No.1728 of 2009 -3-
So far as the relief of financial assistance in respect of dependent of Government employee who died prior to 04.03.2003 is concerned, there was no provision in any of the instructions/ policy issued by the government for grant of financial assistance. So, the Government employee who died prior to 04.03.2003, his/her dependents are not entitled to compassionate assistance. However, the dependents of Government employees whose bread earner died after 04.03.2003, are entitled to financial assistance under the schemes of 2003, 2005 & 2006 whichever is applicable to the dependents provided they fulfil the conditions laid down under the said schemes. There is no reason for with-holding the relief of financial assistance to the dependents of government employee who died after 28.02.2003 in case their case is covered under any of the schemes referred to above. So, we have no hesitation in holding that in case the government employee has died after 04.03.2003, in that case, the petitioners are entitled to financial assistance, according to the scheme applicable to them, as discussed above.
Therefore, in the light of what has been held above, the claim of the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment in all the above-said writ petition stand declined. However, the respondents are directed to make the payment of financial assistance to the dependents in accordance with the schemes applicable to them. These directions are available only to the petitioners who fall within the ambit of definition of dependents under the relevant schemes and are otherwise found eligible according to the above noted scheme."
In Sheela Devi versus State of Haryana & others CWP No.1728 of 2009 -4- bearing CWP No.8844 of 2007 decided on 22.08.2008, another Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
"We are unable to appreciate and accept the stand taken by the respondents, whereas we find substance in the averments made by the petitioner(s). As noticed above the husband of the petitioner expired on 11.10.2005 and the application for compassionate appointment was moved on 24.10.2005. The said application was to be considered under the then prevalent Rules/Policy/Scheme. Admittedly, the same has not been done in the present case and as such the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of being considered under the applicable Rules/Policy/Scheme.
In these circumstances, we dispose of these writ petitions and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner(s) afresh in the light of Instructions/Rules applicable at the time of death of the government employee."
In this view of the matter, counsel for the petitioner has stated that he would press his alternative argument.
In my opinion, this is a justifiable request. It would be only fair if the respondents are held down to the provisions of 2006 policy under which an option is to be granted to the family to either accept one time relief or opt for monthly assistance.
In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondents to grant option to the petitioner to decide whether she wants lump sum assistance or monthly assistance and, after the said option has been exercised to release to the family the assistance opted. Needful be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified CWP No.1728 of 2009 -5- copy of this order.
February 03, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE