RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned letter dated 29.08.2013, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for grant of financial assistance being dependent of deceased Krishan Lal, has been rejected. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant financial assistance of Rs.2.50 lacs as per Rules, 2003 or Rs.5 lacs to the petitioner as per Rules, 2005 as well as Government Rules/Instructions dated 28.02.2003, 01.08.2006 and 16.03.2011.

(2.) As per case of the petitioner, his father, namely, Krishan Lal was working as Beldar since 10.06.1978 in the respondent-Department and he expired on 14.06.2002 during the course of service. Petitioner, being dependent son of Krishan Lal, made a request by moving an application dated 09.08.2008 to appoint him on compassionate ground in view of policy of Ex-gratia appointment but the same was not decided. The case of the petitioner remained pending with the respondents and ultimately, his request was turned down vide letter dated 22.03.2007, stating therein, that only the financial assistance will be provided to him. Thereafter, vide letter dated 06.02.2008, an option was sought from the dependent of the deceased for grant of ex-gratia financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lacs and mother of the petitioner was asked to come present at the office of the respondents with certain documents. In spite of all the efforts made by the petitioner and his widow mother, no action was taken by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.6245 of 2010 before this Court, which was dismissed on 04.05.2012 on the ground of delay. However, against the said judgment, the petitioner had filed LPA No.1695 of 2012, which was also dismissed vide Order dated 19.12.2012. The observation made by the LPA Bench was that it would be open for the petitioner-appellant to pursue the representation regarding financial assistance. The petitioner pursued his case with the respondents for grant of financial assistance but still, the same has not been released. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondents on 21.05.2013 but his claim was rejected vide letter dated 29.08.2013.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner for appointment was declined but while dismissing LPA, an observation was made by the LPA Bench that the petitioner can pursue the remedy with regard to financial assistance. This observation was made as the petitioner could not be appointed on compassionate ground but only the financial assistance as per policy of State Government could be provided to the dependent of deceased employee. Learned counsel also submits that all pending cases of ex-gratia assistance were to be considered under the new rules/policies and as per policy, the families were having the option to opt for the lump sum ex-gratia grant provided under Rules, 2003 or 2005, in lieu of monthly financial assistance as per Rules, 2006. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered under the said instructions and he is entitled for financial assistance of Rs. 2.5 lacs as per Rules, 2003 or Rs. 5 lacs as per Rules, 2005. Learned counsel also submits that as per Instructions dated 16.03.2011, the dependent(s), who could not exercise their option for financial assistance, one more chance was also given to them as one time measure within a period of six months. The case of the petitioner was pending with the respondent-Department but was wrongly rejected. Learned counsel also submits that the claim of the petitioner was also admitted by the Department in the written statement filed in the earlier petition.