SUNITA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband of the petitioner was a policeman who was martyred at a young age in an encounter with antisocial elements. He succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon him by the antisocial elements and as a result of the encounter died on the intervening night of June 03-04, 2000 while performing his official duties bravely. The petitioner was at the time of death of her husband an illiterate person. Initially, she applied for a job for her brother-in-law Karambir Singh under the ex gratia scheme which request was rejected by the Government as he was not dependent on the family of the deceased. At that time, she said that she was not willing to do a job. Later on, she obtained a Matric certificate from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag (Allahabad) which is an institution not recognized for employment in a department of the Haryana Government. She filed a second application on October 09, 2002 for grant of appointment to herself as a Constable in Haryana Police, which claim has been rejected for want of her being a 10th class pass from a recognized Institution. A request for Class-IV job was made in the third application on May 29, 2003 but due to nonavailability of vacancy, a Class-IV job could not be offered to her and consequently her claim was rejected.

(2.) In the alternative, she also made a claim for award of Rs.2.5 lakh as compensation by way of financial assistance by a representation dated October 29, 2003. This claim has been rejected by the impugned order citing Clause 3 (d) (ii) of the |Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 ("2003 Rules"). The reason for rejecting case for financial assistance is that her husband had served the Government of Haryana for less than three years before his death. For these reasons, the State contests the petition contending that orders have been passed and declined earlier with respect to her brother-in-law, job for self as a Constable and then on a post in Class-IV service and finally by volte face for the lesser concession of financial assistance on the ground of delay and laches.

(3.) Mr. Khatri for the petitioner points out that there is no delay since the impugned order is dated June 02, 2006 (Annex P-9) against which the petitioner carried an appeal to the Director General of Police, Haryana which appeal was rejected on November 05, 2013 (Annex P-10) and that is how the petitioner has approached this Court; firstly, to provide ex gratia appointment or instead financial assistance of Rs.5 lakh for a kin of a martyr.