MAHENDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the action of the respondents in denying her the compassionate financial assistance on account of death of her husband. The husband of the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the post of Workshop Instructor on 12.1.2007. After his selection, he was referred to Chief Medical Officer for medical examination. The husband of the petitioner was accordingly medically examined on 19.1.2007 and was certified to be fit vide Annexure P -2. On 22.1.2007, the husband of the petitioner was issued appointment letter and he joined the service on. 24.1.2007. On 11.1.2008, while coming to join his duty, the husband of the petitioner met with a fatal accident and expired. The petitioner submitted a claim for compassionate financial assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short, "2006 Rules"). The claim of the petitioner was rejected on 1,12.2008. The copy of the same is Annexure P -6. The reasons for rejecting the claim is that the husband of . the petitioner had less than one year service and, thus, the family would not be entitled to compassionate financial assistance. The petitioner represented against the same on 17.12.2008. However, when nothing was done, she has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) THE respondents would defend their action for the same reason for which the claim of the petitioner was declined. It is reiterated that petitioner would not be entitled to compassionate financial assistance as her husband had less than one year of service, when he died. As per the respondents, the petitioner is not eligible to receive the compassionate financial assistance in terms of 2006 Rules. The eligibility for financial assistance is regulated by Paragraph 3 of the Rules. As per this Rule, the eligibility to receive financial assistance shall be as per the provisions of Pension/Family Pension Scheme, 1964. By making reference to Rule 4 of Family Pension Scheme, 1964, it is urged that a Government employee should have completed a minimum period of one year continuous service without break for grant of family pension. It is accordingly stated that the petitioner being not eligible for grant of family pension, would not be eligible for the grant of compassionate financial assistance as well.

(3.) IN the present case, however, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of family pension and the condition of completing one year continuous service can not be pressed in view of Rule 4 of Family Pension Rules. The counsel would refer to note under the Rules, as per which: Family Pension can be granted before completion of one year continuous service, if the Government employee concerned immediately prior to recruitment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit for the Government service. In support, he has also drawn my attention to the case of Smt. Savitri Devi v. The State of Haryana and Ors., 1996(2) R.S.J. 854. The Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that even if the deceased government employee does not complete one year of continuous service, his dependent would nevertheless be entitled to the grant of family pension provided the deceased was medically examined and found fit and medical certificate of fitness was produced before entering into Government service. The right of the petitioner to make a claim for family pension, thus, is apparently covered by the ratio of law laid down in Smt. Savitri Devi's case (supra). Rule 4 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 reads as under: