CWP No.2344 of 2010 Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others Present: Mr.R.N.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Kundu, Addl.AG, Haryana * * * Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Father of the petitioner late Shri Satbir Singh was working as clerk with the office of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Narwana District Jind. He died in harness on 24.4.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner was married. The petitioner applied for compassionate assistance. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure P-7) which is reproduced as under:- In reference to the subject cited above. “Regarding financial assistance, as per the concurrence of Government, no member of the deceased family is covered under rule -3(e) of Rules 2005. Thus, the applicant should be informed accordingly.” It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. It is stated that rule-3(e) of Rules 2005 has been wrongly applied in the case of the petitioner. Under this rule, ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance is to be given in accordance with the notification dated 18.11.2005 whereby the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 has been notified for eligible family members seeking ex-gratia appointment on compassionate ground under rule 3(e). The petitioner never applied for compassionate appointment; therefore, the respondents wrongly applied the rule in the case of the petitioner and rejected the claim of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is seeking the ex gratia financial assistance in terms of rule 3(f). The claim of the petitioner has not been considered in accordance with the aforesaid rule. Mr.Kundu has referred the rule 3(b) wherein the ex gratia assistance is available only to the dependant members of the indigent family CWP No.2344 of 2010 [2] of the deceased. As a mater of fact, the respondents have not held any enquiry with regard to the dependency of the petitioner upon the deceased employee nor claim of the petitioner has been dealt with under rules 3(f) and 3(b) of 2005 rules. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed and impugned order dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure P-7) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents with a direction to hold an enquiry with regard to the claim of the petitioner for ex-gratia compassionate/ financial assistance in terms of rule 3(f). The respondents are also entitled to examine the question of dependency of the petitioner upon the deceased in terms of rule 3(b). Needless to say, that the petitioner shall be associated in the enquiry, to be conducted by the respondents. Let the enquiry be completed within a period of four months. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 05.08.2010 sd