RAJ RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming ex-gratia payment as per the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that her husband Shri Bhag Ram, who was working as Head Constable in the Police Department, Haryana, died on 18.2.1994, while in service. The petitioner submitted her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds on 5.4.1994. Vide letter dated 28.8.1996 the petitioner was asked to appear for an interview on 3.9.1996 at Panchkula, and she appeared for the interview but later, vide letter dated 23.4.1997 (Annexure P-4), she was informed that she could not be appointed as Clerk Constable as she was not fully qualified for the same. The claim of the petitioner continued to be pending consideration with the respondents for compassionate appointment on a Class-IV post. The Chief Secretary's Office vide letter 17671/W-5 dated 6.10.2000 returned the case of the petitioner with the remarks that her case be considered for the post of Constable against the post of Constables. As she did not fulfill the physical requirements of the said post, she could not be appointed on the said post. Thereafter, the office of the Chief Secretary vide Communication dated 8.12.2000 instructed the Department of Police that she may be adjusted against the post of Sr. Lab Attendant in the office of Director Secondary Education, Haryana. Thereafter, the office of the Director General of Police, Haryana, vide communication dated 18.12.2000 submitted the case of the petitioner to the office of the Chief Secretary with a request for adjustment against the post of Sr. Lab Attendant in the office of Director Secondary Education, Haryana. The office of the Chief Secretary vide letter No. 16/63/99-3GS-II dated 27.8.2002 returned the cases of all Class III and IV officials to the Police Department with the advice that the dependents of the deceased employees be considered for ex-gratia appointment in the Police Department. The case of the petitioner on receipt from the office of the Chief Secretary was included in the list of cases lying pending in the Police Headquarters according to the seniority of the files. Thereafter, vide letter dated 29/30.09.03 of the Commandant 5th Battalion HAP Madhuban, District Karnal-respondent No. 3, the petitioner was informed that she could be granted ex-gratia financial assistance of Rs. 2.50 lacss and accordingly her willingness for accepting the same was sought. The petitioner on receipt of the said communication gave her option and accepted the offer made by the Department for grant of Rs. 2.50 lacs as compassionate assistance. The said acceptance was forwarded by respondent No. 3 to the Director General of Police-respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 3.10.2003 (Annexure P-7). Since no response was received from respondent No. 2, respondent No. 3 again sent a reminder along with the written option of the petitioner accompanied by the requisite documents so that the claim of the petitioner could be finalized. The Director General of Police-respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 15.6.2006 (Annexure P-9) addressed to the Commandant 5th Battalion HAP Madhuban, District Karnal-respondent No. 3, has rejected the case of the petitioner for ex gratia financial assistance of Rs. 2.50 lacs on the ground that the petitioner did not submit the application for ex gratia financial assistance within the time limit of three years from the death of her deceased husband. The said decision of respondent No. 2 was communicated to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 26.6.2006 (Annexure P-10). It is these communications, namely, Annexures P-9 and P-10 which have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(3.) Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents who have responded by filing a written statement wherein the factual aspect as submitted by the petitioner in the writ petition has been admitted. The only round taken by the respondents for not granting the claim of the petitioner is that of delay and on the other hand there is an assertion by the respondents that the claim of the petitioner already stood decided when her claim for appointment to the post of Constable as well as Clerk was considered but due to her not fulfilling the qualifications and physical standards, she could not be appointed on the said posts.