DARSHANA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this court by assailing the order dated 08.09.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, vide which the option exercised by the petitioner for grant of monthly financial assistance under Rule 5 of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as '2006 Rules') has been rejected on the ground that a clarification has been issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana vide letter dated 08.06.2007, according to which, the claimants in the case, where death happened prior to 01.08.2006 and where Pension Payment Orders/GPO's have been issued, cannot opt for new scheme introduced from 01.08.2006.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that this stand of the respondents cannot be pressed into service qua the petitioner in the light of order dated 13.07.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No. 6492 of 2008 preferred by the petitioner where petitioner had been given liberty to file a representation to the respondents to change her option from grant of lump-sum payment of L5 lacs as ex-gratia payment to that of Monthly Assistance Scheme. His further contention is that the statutory Rules cannot be, by instructions/ letters, obliterated and the statutory Rules shall over-ride the effect of the instructions/ letters issued by the authorities, which is contrary to the Rules itself. His submission is that if the letter dated 08.06.2007 is given precedence, Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules would loose its relevance and it would amount to deleting the said Rule. This, the counsel contends, is not in accordance with law and, therefore, the impugned order cannot sustain.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has rightly been denied the benefit of the 2006 Rules as she has already been granted the benefit of family pension. Reliance has also been placed upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 4303 of 2009 titled as Krishna Kumari v. State of Haryana and others, to contend that the Policy, which was in force at the time of death of the employee, would be applicable and since the husband of the petitioner died on 23.10.2005 and 2006 Rules came into force on 01.08.2006, the same would not apply to the claim of the petitioner dis entitling her to the claim as made by her in the present writ petition. On this basis, he prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.