DARSHNA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Husband of the petitioner died on 15.2.2001 while he was working as Assistant Treasurer at Guhla in Treasury and Accounts Department, Haryana. In response to an application made, son of the petitioner was offered a post of Peon on 29.1.2004. He did not accept the same as he considered himself entitled to for a post of Clerk, which was one step lower than the post held by his late father.

(2.) The petitioner accordingly made a request on 10.9.2004 to the respondents to appoint her son to the post of Clerk under an exgratia scheme as per the Rules then prevalent. The respondents, in response, required the son of the petitioner to join the post by 11.11.2004 with a warning that otherwise the appointment would be cancelled. The son of the petitioner did not join the post as offered even thereafter. Instead, the petitioner asked for payment of sum of 2,50,000/- as ex-gratia payment under the Scheme. Thereafter, she made various representations but did not receive any response till June 2007. She has accordingly now filed this writ petition to seek compassionate assistance under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Government Employees Rules, 2006 on the ground that all pending cases are to be considered under 2006 Rules in term of Rule 6 of the said Rules.

(3.) The Haryana Government has formulated Rules for grant of compassionate assistance to the dependents of the deceased Government employee, which have undergone change from time to time. The husband of the petitioner died in the year 2001 and her son was offered a job of Peon on 29.1.2004. Obviously, it was under the Rules framed in the year 2003, which made a provision for grant of appointment on compassionate basis or in the alternative for payment of sum of 2,50,000/- as compassionate assistance. The son of the petitioner was offered a job of Peon, which he did not accept. The compassionate appointment/ compassionate assistance is primarily meant to help the family to tide over loss of bread winner, which would be the need on account of death of an employee. Once the offer of appointment was made, which was not accepted, it would obviously mean that in fact the petitioner or her son was not in need of a job so urgently or on the basis of a compassion to tied over any financial crises that the family might have faced on account of death of a bread earner.