KAMLESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the instant petition is to the orders dated 7.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) and 18.8.2005 (Annexure P-5). The orders have rejected the claim of the petitioner, who had sought compassionate appointment on account of the death of her husband in harness. Brief facts may fist be noticed. Sh. Mewa Singh who was husband of the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on adhoc basis on 24.11.1994. He has died in harness on 05.03.2004. On 15.4.2005 respondents have regularised his services w.e.f. 01.10.2003 vide order Annexure P-2. The widow-petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on account of the death of her husband on 30.04.2004. She has disclosed in her application (Annexure P-1) that she belonged to Scheduled Caste community being Chamar and has 'no source of income even for taking food'. She has two children aged about two and four years. She disclosed that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were also dependent on her deceased husband and that they have no immovable property. The application of the widow-petitioner has been rejected on 15.04.2005 by respondent No. 2 by passing the following order (Annexure P-2):

(2.) The widow-petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1 who has rejected the same by observing that her husband did not complete three years service on regular basis as contemplated by Rule 3(d)(ii) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules 2003 (for short 'Rules'). Mr. R.K. Malik, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that Rule 3(d) of the Rules, which defines the expression 'deceased Government employees' does not require that such an employee should have rendered atleast three years of regular service. According to the learned Counsel in order to interpret the rule in the manner it is construed by the respondents, the words 'regular service' has to be added to Rule 3(d)(ii) of the Rules. He has emphasized that these Rules should be construed in a manner which would advance the object of the rule, which is ameliorate sufferings of the family of the deceased employee and should not be construed strictly as has been done by the respondents.

(3.) Learned State counsel, however, has argued that the rule deserves to be interpreted in the light of Rule 3(d)(i) of the Rules, which lays down that a deceased Government employee would mean only such an employee who has been appointed on regular basis, and not working on daily wages, casual, apprentice, work charged, adhoc, contractual or reemployment basis. According to the learned Counsel if Rule 3(d)(ii) is interpreted in the aforesaid manner then it would mean that only an employee with regular service of three years could be considered to have conferred any rights on his dependents to claim compassionate appointment or ex-gratia compensation.