SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband of the petitioner was appointed as Conductor by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat, vide order dated 17.5.1995 on contractual basis. His services were regularised on 16.5.1997. A copy of the order of appointment and a copy of the order of regularisation have been placed on record as Annexures P-1 and P-2. On 14.4.1999, when he was on duty and travelling in the bus of the respondent Roadways, some dacoits, who were also travelling in the bus, threatened the passengers to hand over their valuable, cash and ornaments to them. The husband of the petitioner resisted the onslaught unleashed by the dacoits and challenged the dacoits when they started robbing the passengers. As a consequence he was shot dead by the robbers. The recommendations which were made by the General Manager in his letter dated 29.6.1999 (P-3), certifying the aforementioned facts and recommending the case of the petitioner for appointment as a Clerk, deserve pointed attention and the same reads as under :-

(2.) The respondents, however, declined the request made by the petitioner even for grant of ex gratia financial assistance of Rs. 2,50,000/- vide order dated 14.6.2004 passed by General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat and the same reads as under :-

(3.) In the written statement filed by the respondents the stand taken is that the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner was less than three years which dis-entitles her to claim compassionate appointment by virtue of Rule 3(d) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Employees Rules, 2003 (for brevity 'the 2003 Rules'). It is, however, admitted that husband of the petitioner. It is appropriate to mention that the husband of the petitioner was appointed on 17.5.1995 on contract basis and his services were regularised vide order dated 25.4.1998 w.e.f. 16.5.1997 when he had completed two years of service. A copy of the order has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. It is also admitted in para 6 of the written statement that the General Manager has recommended the case of the petitioner under the 2003 Rules by relaxation of any rules, if necessary or in the alternative her case was recommended for granting her ex gratia financial assistance. Referring to Rule 8 of 2003 Rules, the respondents have asserted that no relaxation in the case of the petitioner would be permissible. The further stand taken is that the waiting list was valid for a period of three years as is revealed after reading the order dated 10.9.2003 (Annexure P-5).