USHA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 12.6.2002 (Annexure-P.3) whereby the Executive Engineer, D&P Public Health Division, Sonepat (respondent No. 3) in response to legal notice of the petitioner has intimated that the petitioner is not entitled for the service benefits, i.e., family pension, gratuity, ex-gratia grant and appointment on compassionate ground. Besides, she is not entitled for taking the benefits under Rule 3.12 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (as applicable in Haryana) Volume-II. It is prayed that the respondents be directed to grant family pension, gratuity, ex-gratia grant with all other consequential benefits after regularising the services of the husband of the petitioner and the arrears be paid with interest @ 18% per annum.

(2.) The husband of the petitioner, namely, late Ravinder Singh was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar in Public Health Department on work charge/daily wage basis w.e.f. March 1994. While in service of the Public Health Department, he died on 20.8.1999 leaving behind his widow petitioner, besides three minor daughters and one minor son. The deceased husband of the petitioner had rendered more than five years service at the time of his death and, therefore, it is stated that he was entitled for regularisation of his service according to the government instructions. The petitioner made an application dated 22.2.2001 (Annexure-P.1) requesting for appointment in the Department of Public Health. The petitioner contacted the office of the respondents time and again for release of pensionary benefits like family pension, gratuity, ex- gratia grant and compassionate appointment but nothing was done. Thereafter, the petitioner through her counsel served a legal notice dated 2.5.2002 (Annexure-P.2) for the grant of pensionary benefits, i.e., family pension, gratuity, ex-gratia grant and appointment on compassionate grounds. The said legal notice has been rejected vide impugned order dated 12.6.2002 (Annexure- P.3) which, as already noticed, is assailed in this writ petition.

(3.) On notice, reply has been filed by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 2, Sonepat (respondent No. 3) on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 20.2.2003 and thereafter filed amended written statement dated 7.12.2003 which was permitted to be taken on record by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2003. In terms of the amended written statement, it is stated that pensionary benefits cannot be given to the petitioner in case of the death of her husband while working in the respondent department as daily wager as there is no such rule/instructions of the State Government to grant pensionary benefits to the deceased family of the daily rated employees. It was also stated that the provisions of Civil Services, Rules, Volume-II (CSR, Volume-II - for short) are only applicable to State Government employees under permanent/regular cadre and not for daily rated employees. Besides, in terms of Rules 3.12 and 3.16(b) under foot-note (4) of CSR, Volume-II, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. It is further stated that the husband of the petitioner was engaged as daily rated employee with the respondent department as an unskilled labourer and paid as per rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner and there are no dues pending with the respondents. Further there are no such rules under which pensionary benefits are available to the daily rated employees. It is accepted that husband of the petitioner had rendered service with the respondents as daily wager for five years. It is submitted that the respondents have full sympathy with the petitioner but are unable to grant the family pension, gratuity, ex-gratia grant to the petitioner in the absence of rules and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.