GENERAL MANAGER Vs. PEHLADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband of the respondent herein, who was working as Lineman with the appellants, died in harness on 03.01.2006. Her elder son made application for compassionate appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Employees Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Rules 2005). However, as the elder son of the respondent was already employed in Assam Rifles, this request was withdrawn and thereafter the respondent applied for ex-gratia financial assistance of Rs. 5 lacs under Rules 2005. Before this request could be considered and appropriate orders passed, another policy known as the 'Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006' (hereinafter referred to as Rules 2006) came into force w.e.f. 01.08.2006. The respondent, thereafter, opted for the benefit of financial assistance under Rules 2006, which request was denied.

(2.) In this appeal filed against that judgement, the entire thrust of the appellants is on the Full Bench judgement of this Court in CWP No. 4303 of 2009 and connected petitions decided on 20.04.2012 with lead case titled as Krishna Kumari Vs State of Haryana and others. In that case, the Full Bench was concerned with Rules 2003 under which application was submitted by the dependent of the deceased seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. However, application of the dependent was kept pending and in the meantime Rules 2006 were promulgated, which were less favourable to the dependent. The case of the dependent was considered under the latter Rules. The Full Bench was of the view that merely by keeping the request pending and delaying the matter, the authorities could not take advantage of their own wrong and the case would be governed by the policy in vogue at the time when the death had occurred. It is on this basis, learned counsel for the appellants argues that since the husband of the respondent died on 03.01.2006 when Rules 2005 were prevalent and she even exercised her option under this policy for lump sum amount of Rs. 5 lacs, she has to be paid that amount only and cannot claim the benefit of Rules 2006.

(3.) Precisely, this very question came up for consideration before this very Division Bench in Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others Vs Smt. Kelo Devi and another, LPA No. 1078 of 2012 decided on 07.11.2012. The Division Bench took note of the aforesaid Full Bench judgement and clarified that the ratio of the case was that the benefit which was more beneficial to the dependent of the deceased could not be taken away by its own fault by the department in delaying the matter. Moreover, provisions of Rules 5 and 6, as extracted above, were taken into consideration on the basis of which it was held in that judgement that since Rule 6 gives an option to the dependent whose case is still pending even to opt for a benefit under Rules 2006, this benefit would be available to the dependent of the deceased. Relevant discussion, in this behalf, is contained in the following portion of the said judgement:-