MAMTESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the grievance which is raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner has been denied the benefits accruing to her under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "2006 Rules"). The claim of the petitioner for the grant of the benefits has been declined vide order dtd. 26/3/2018 (Annexure P/10) on the ground that the husband of the petitioner, who was working as a driver with the respondent-Department, was not regular employee on the date when he died and under 2006 Rules, only legal heirs of the regular employee are entitled for the benefits under 2006 Rules.

(2.) As per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, husband of the petitioner, namely, Sh. Jai Narain, was appointed as a driver on contractual basis on 28/8/2002 on a fixed salary of Rs.2410.00 per month. He was selected as a Driver after due advertisement and after considering the claim of all eligible persons. In pursuance to the said selection, husband of the petitioner was appointed vide appointment letter dtd. 25/7/2002, ultimately, joined on 28/8/2002. At the time of the selection, husband of the petitioner had cleared the medical fitness test also. Unfortunately, while working as a driver, husband of the petitioner, who was suffering from cancer, ultimately, died on 12/5/2007. After the death, the petitioner made a claim for the grant of the benefits to her as envisaged under 2006 Rules. As the benefits were not being released to the petitioner, she approached this Court by filing CWP No. 24886 of 2017, which was disposed of by this Court on 2/11/2017 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of benefits under 2006 Rules by passing an appropriate speaking order. In pursuance to the said direction given by this Court, respondents passed an order on 26/3/2018 (Annexure P/10) declining the claim of the petitioner. The reason for declining was that as per 2006 Rules, only the legal heirs of a regular employee are entitled for the benefits and as the petitioner's husband was not working on regular basis, the case for the grant of benefits under 2006 Rules was not covered. The said order dtd. 26/3/2018 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) Upon notice of motion, respondents have filed the reply. In the reply also, the same stand has been taken by the respondents that as the late husband of the petitioner was not a regular driver with the respondent, no benefit under 2006 rules can be extended. The relevant portion of the reply is as under:-