IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 981 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 30, 2011 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Ganga Devi ...Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV GURDEV GURDEV GURDEV SINGH SINGH SINGH SINGH Present: Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The State of Haryana is in appeal against the direction issued by the learned Single Judge on 5.1.2011. While allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent the learned Single Judge has held that the matter is covered against the appellant by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kamlesh Kamlesh Kamlesh Kamlesh v. v. v. v. State of Haryana and others State of Haryana and others State of Haryana and others State of Haryana and others, 2007 (1) RSJ , 2007 (1) RSJ , 2007 (1) RSJ , 2007 (1) RSJ 215 215 215 215, and proceeded to hold that the period of service rendered by a deceased employee preceding the date of his regularisation would count for the purposes of granting financial benefits. The learned Single Judge relied upon the interpretation given to Clause 3(d)(ii) of the Rules known as 'the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003. The learned Single Judge has rightly adopted the reasoning followed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kesar Chand Kesar Chand Kesar Chand Kesar Chand v. v. v. v. State of State of State of State of Punjab Punjab Punjab Punjab, 1988 (2) PLR 223 , 1988 (2) PLR 223 , 1988 (2) PLR 223 , 1988 (2) PLR 223. The Division Bench in Kamlesh's case Kamlesh's case Kamlesh's case Kamlesh's case (supra) (supra) (supra) (supra) has interpreted Rule 3(d)(ii) by observing as under:- " 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that a strict view as has been taken by the respondents would be unwarranted in L.P.A. No. 981 of 2011 (O&M) 2 matters concerning compassionate appointment. The object of Rules contemplating compassionate appointment is to provide some succour to the family of the deceased Government employee, who is virtually the bread earner of the family. It advances a social object of rescuing such a family from the clutches of a sudden event plunging the whole family into penury and haplessness. The social object as sought to be achieved by the Rules cannot be defeated by strictly construing the rules as has been done by the respondents. For facility of reference, we reproduce the rule here under:- "3(d) "Deceased Govt. Employee" means a Government employee – (i) appointed on regular basis and not working on daily wages, casual, apprentice, work charged, ad hoc, contractual or re-employment basis; (ii) who has served the Government for at least 3 years; (iii) who should not have crossed the age of 55 years." If Rule 3(d)(ii) of the Rules is read ejusdem generis as suggested by the learned STate counsel rather than interpreting both the clauses independently of each other then the basic object of the rules of ameliorating the sufferings of dependents of deceased Government employee would stand defeated. Such is not the intention of the rule making authority. It is trite to observe that socio-economic legislation is required to be interpreted by keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by such legislation. Moreover, Rule 3(d)(ii) has to be read down by adding words regular service. The plain meaning of the Rule is that an employee should have served the Government for at least for three years which the husband of the petitioner has done. It is also pertinent to notice that any ad hoc service followed by regularisation is to qualify for pension as has been held L.P.A. No. 981 of 2011 (O&M) 3 by the Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand vs. State Kesar Chand vs. State Kesar Chand vs. State Kesar Chand vs. State of PUnjab of PUnjab of PUnjab of PUnjab, 1988 (2) PLR 223. Therefore, we regret our inability to agree with the learned State counsel and reject the interpretation preferred by the respondents in the impugned orders dated 7.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) and 18.8.2005 (Annexure P-5)." 2. Having heard the learned State counsel we are of the considered view that this appeal does not merit admission. Once the services of a part-timer or ad hoc has been regularised then the period preceding the date of regularisation would count for the purposes of granting exgratia payment on account of death of an employee. The learned State counsel has not been able to point out any material distinction between the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamlesh (supra) Kamlesh (supra) Kamlesh (supra) Kamlesh (supra) and the one in hand. Accordingly, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR (M.M. KUMAR (M.M. KUMAR (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) May May May May 30 30 30 30, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor