BIRMATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Birmati has filed the instant writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for issuance of directions to the respondent-Authorities to appoint her son Parveen Kumar on compassionate ground as per policy of the State Government, issued vide notification dated 28.2.2003, Annexure P2, or in the alternative to be granted the monthly financial assistance equal to the pay last drawn by her deceased-husband as per Government notification dated 1.8.2006.

(2.) Facts, in brief, that would be relevant for disposal of the petition would require notice. Husband of the petitioner, namely, Om Parkash was appointed as a Water Carrier on regular basis with the respondent Haryana Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development Department on regular basis and joined on such post on 4.12.1980. He unfortunately expired on 11.6.2006 while in harness. As per pleadings on record, the petitioner submitted an option in writing seeking compassionate appointment for her son Parveen Kumar under the ex-gratia scheme in the light of State Government notification dated 28.2.2003. Claim of the petitioner was kept pending and was not finalized. Vide memo dated 19.6.2008 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development, Panipat, the petitioner was called upon to submit an option as regards grant of financial assistance or monthly financial assistance. Vide such memo, it was, however, made clear to the petitioner that the dependent/member of the family of the deceased employee cannot be provided compassionate appointment under the exgratia scheme. The petitioner responded by submitting a representation dated 4.6.2009 at Annexure P9 and opted for the benefit of monthly financial assistance in terms of Government Rules dated 1.8.2006. Vide order dated 18.2.2010 issued by the Director General, Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development, Haryana, Panchkula, sanction was accorded in favour of the petitioner for grant of lump sum ex-gratia financial assistance of Rs. 5 lacs. Such lump sum financial assistance has not been accepted by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is entitled for the monthly financial assistance as envisaged under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short as 'the 2006 Rules'). It has further been argued that the action of the respondent-Authorities in according sanction for a lump sum ex-gratia financial assistance of Rs. 5 lacs vide order dated 18.2.2010 at Annexure P10 is arbitrary and in violation of the 2006 Rules.