Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1147 (PNJ)

BABITA RANI v. STATE OF HARYANA

2017-05-10

KULDIP SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : KULDIP SINGH, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.02.2016 (Annexure P-10) vide which the claim of the petitioner for monthly assistance in lieu of ex-gratia scheme dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure P-3) has been rejected. The prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus has also been made for directing the respondents to grant monthly financial assistance in lieu of ex-gratia scheme dated 01.08.2006. 2. Brief facts of this case are that Ishwar Singh, husband of the petitioner, who was working as Conductor in Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon Depot under the Haryana State Transport Department, died in harness on 19.10.2005. The petitioner being her widow had applied for compassionate appointment on 13.03.2006. It is stated that in response to the said letter, she was informed vide letter dated 26.07.2007 (Annexure P-1) that now new policy dated 01.08.2006 has come into force and earlier policy of 2003 has been abolished. Therefore, she cannot be granted appointment on compassionate grounds. She was further informed that since her husband had expired on 19.10.2005, therefore, policy of 2003 will be applicable and she will be entitled to either a lump sum amount of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs or avail benefit of monthly financial assistance. She was directed to send the option within seven days. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her option for monthly financial assistance under ex-gratia scheme vide letter dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure P-2). She has specifically stated that she does not opt for lump sum amount of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs. It comes out thereafter vide order dated 27.01.2016 (Annexure P-10), the prayer of the petitioner for grant of monthly assistance under the policy of 2006 has been declined. 3. In the written statement, respondents have taken the stand that at the time of the death of the husband of the petitioner, Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2003 were applicable. The P.P.O No. 36536/F//HR was also issued on 23.05.2006 and the petitioner has been availing the benefit of family pension. It is further stated that policy of 2006 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is in fact entitled to lump sum amount of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs. The P.P.O No. 36536/F//HR was also issued on 23.05.2006 and the petitioner has been availing the benefit of family pension. It is further stated that policy of 2006 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is in fact entitled to lump sum amount of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs. Reliance has also been placed on the instructions dated 16.01.2009 (Annexure R-1) wherein it has been clarified that where PPO/GPO has been issued in case of death occurred prior to 01.08.2006, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 cannot be made applicable. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the case file. 5. From the documents placed on file, it comes out that though option of the petitioner was sought on 26.07.2007 as to whether she want lump sum amount of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs under the Rules 2003 or she want monthly assistance and the petitioner gave her option for monthly assistance under the ex-gratia scheme dated 01.08.2006 but the respondent-department appears to have issued P.P.O granting the family pension which was otherwise admissible to the family of the deceased-employee. However, the right accruing under the Compassionate Policy of the Government in addition to the existing Rules Letter dated 26.07.2007 (Annexure P-1) shows that on the said date, the matter regarding compassionate assistance to the petitioner was still pending. The policy of 2006 came into force w.e.f. 01.08.2006. Under Rule 6, all the pending cases of ex-gratia assistance are to be covered under the new Rules of 2006. Though, Under Rule 7, in case of any doubt, the matter has to be referred to the Government whose decision is to be final. However, the fact remains that the case of the petitioner for ex-gratia monthly assistance was pending when the policy of 2006 came into operation. Therefore, her case was to be dealt under the policy of 2006. Mere grant of family pension does not take away the rights of the petitioner which accrued to her by the policy of 2006. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.02.2016 (Annexure P-10) is hereby quashed. Therefore, her case was to be dealt under the policy of 2006. Mere grant of family pension does not take away the rights of the petitioner which accrued to her by the policy of 2006. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.02.2016 (Annexure P-10) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the compassionate monthly assistance to the petitioner in terms of policy of 2006 and pass the necessary orders within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The family pension already paid to the petitioner shall be adjusted against the compassionate monthly assistance in easy installments.