ANU RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 11.03.2008 (Annexure P-4), vide which the claim of the petitioner for monthly ex-gratia financial assistance stands rejected.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Political Science in Government Senior Secondary School, Muana, Jind, on 10.12.2004, which post he joined on 11.12.2004. On 30.03.2006, unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died in an accident leaving behind the petitioner and two minor school going children. Petitioner and her two children were fully dependent upon him and with no source of income, petitioner applied for appointment on 26.06.2006 on compassionate grounds under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as '2005 Rules'). The claim of the petitioner was considered under the 2006 Rules as in the meanwhile, vide notification dated 01.08.2006, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as '2006 Rules') came into force, under which the 2005 Rules were repealed.

(3.) In Rule 6, it was mentioned that all pending cases of ex-gratia assistance shall be covered under the new rules. However, the families were given an option to opt for the lump-sum ex-gratia grant provided under the Rules 2003 or 2005, as the case may be, in lieu of monthly financial assistance as provided under the 2006 Rules. Petitioner, the counsel contends, is asserting her claim for the grant of fixed monthly financial assistance as provided under the 2006 Rules, which claim has been rejected by the respondents vide the impugned order dated 11.03.2008 (Annexure P-4). He contends that the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the light of the specific provisions contained in Rule 6 as also Rule 8 of the 2006 Rules is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court passed in the case of Darshana Devi vs. State of Haryana and others,2012 3 RSJ 469to support his contention, wherein this Court had, in similar facts and circumstances, allowed the claim, as has been made by the petitioner in the present writ petition.