STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JYOTSANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HUSBAND of the respondent was appointed as a Cook with the Haryana Police on 1.5.2002. He unfortunately died on 21.9.2003. The claim of the respondent for grant of ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance was rejected vide order dated 20.3.2006 passed by the Commandant, India Reserve Battalion, Bhondsi, Gurgaon. Respondent filed CWP No. 7032 of 2006 impugning the order dated 20.3.2006. In terms of judgement dated 20.7.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge the order rejecting the claim of the appellant for grant of ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance has been set aside and she has been held entitled to an amount of Rs.2.5 lacs under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Govt. Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter to be referred as 2003 Rules) along with 7% interest from the date of raising such claim till the date of actual disbursement.

(2.) THE instant appeal at the hands of State of Haryana is directed against the judgement dated 20.7.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge while allowing CWP No. 7032 of 2006.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge while reading Rules 2 and 3 reproduced herein above has drawn a distinction as regards grant of benefit of ex-gratia appointment on compassionate grounds as opposed to grant of ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance. It has been held that the definition of "deceased govt. employee" under clause (d) of Rule 3 which in turn mandates serving the Govt. for at least three years, would come into play only to consider the claim of ex-gratia appointment on compassionate basis. In so far as grant of ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance is concerned, it has been held that under Rule 2 sub clause (ii) and Rule 3 sub clause (b) the word "deceased" has been used as opposed to "deceased employee" under Rule 2 sub clause (ii) and as such the requirement of having served the Govt. for at least three years under the definition of "deceased govt. employee" under Rule 3 sub clause (d) would have no application. It is in terms of drawing such distinction between the word "deceased" as mentioned in Rule 2 sub clause (ii) and the expression "deceased employee" under Rule 2 sub clause (i) that the respondent has been held entitled to grant of ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance.