SUNITA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against order dated 31.3.2004 (P-8), declining the request of the petitioner for grant of ex- gratia financial assistance of Rs. 2,50,000/- in lieu of her claim for appointment on ex-gratia basis.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The husband of the petitioner Shri Narinder Singh joined as daily wager in the Transport Department on 25.7.1990. He filed C.W.P. No. 5415 of 1991, which was disposed of on 11.4.1991 with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order on the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, the services of the husband of the petitioner were regularised on 6.10.1995 on the post of Helper after taking test by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways. Rewari-respondent No. 5. However, he unfortunately died on 26.3.1997. The petitioner applied for ex-gratia appointment under the then prevailing policy of the State of Haryana, dated 8.5.1995 (P-4). The turn of the petitioner did not mature and on 16.9.2003 (P-7), the General Manager-respondent No. 5 asked her to exercise option for release of financial assistance of Rs. 2,50,000/-. She exercised the option but the claim has been declined on the preposterous ground that the husband of the petitioner did not have to his credit three years regular service.

(3.) Mr. Vivek Lamba, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in accordance with the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (for brevity, 'the Rules'), there is no such requirement for granting ex-gratia financial assistance. He has drawn our attention to clause (d) of Rule 3 of the Rules, which is to the effect that "Deceased Government Employee" means a Government Employee who is appointed on regular basis and not working on daily wages, casual, apprentice, work charged, adhoc, contractual or reemployment basis and who has served the Government for at least three years. The aforementioned Rule came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamlesh v. State of Haryana, 2006 6 SLR 398. Rule 3(d) (i) & (ii) has been interpreted to mean that the service rendered by the deceased employee could be in the nature of adhoc, daily wages, casual, worked charged etc. Accordingly, the basis of the impugned order dated 31.3.2004 (11-8) that the husband of the petitioner has required to have at least three years regular service is knocked out and the petition deserves to succeed.