SUSHILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in the present writ petition relates to interpretation of rules framed for ex-gratia assistance known as "Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees, Rules, 2003 (hereinafter called, "2003 Rules"). The petitioner is a wife of Constable Ramphal Singh, who died in harness on 14.7.2005. The question to be seen is whether she will be entitled to financial assistance in terms of the latest rules now framed in the year 2006 or employment/ex-gratia lump-sum payment under the rules framed in the years 2003 or 2005.

(2.) The State Government had framed rules in the year 2003 for compassionate appointment to the dependents of the employees who died in harness. Under the Rules, dependents of the deceased Government employee had the option to receive ex-gratia appointment on the compassionate ground to a member of family who was completely dependent on the deceased employee or lumpsum ex-gratia financial assistance of Rs. 2.5 lacs, to such dependent who does not opt for ex-gratia appointment. Certain amendments were made in these rules in the year 2004.

(3.) On 22.5.2006, respondent No. 5, Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, sent a letter to the petitioner that her request for Government service under ex-gratia scheme has not been received. It was also mentioned that 10+2 certificate was to be submitted within three years as otherwise the case would become time barred. The petitioner thereafter sent more than one applications for grant of appointment under the ex-gratia scheme. She also passed 10+2 from the Central Board of School Education within 3 years period as stipulated. She, however, was not given the ex-gratia appointment. The petitioner then filed a representation to the Chief Minister, Haryana. Director General of Police, Haryana, had then issued an order dated 2.11.2006 according permission for financial assistance of sum equal to the pay and other allowances that were last drawn by the deceased husband of the petitioner with effect from 1.8.2006. She was also informed that she would not be entitled to get pension w.e.f. 1.8.2006 during the period she would draw pay and allowances under the new scheme.