CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19983 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 26, 2010 Murti and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. P. K. Ganga, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for grant of compassionate financial assistance of `5,00,000/- alongwith interest in terms of the scheme for grant of compassionate assistance due to death of their bread- earner. Midha Singh, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4, was employed as Beldar in the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19983 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: Irrigation Department. Midha Singh expired on 10.2.2005, leaving behind the petitioners and some others as his legal heirs. Geeta Devi (petitioner No.2) applied for post of Peon in March 2005 under the ex-gratia scheme whereas the remaining petitioners had given their consent for grant of this appointment to petitioner No.2. The case had remained pending for considerable time. The Executive Engineer, Rori (Sirsa) approached the Superintendent Engineer, Bhakra Water Service Circle, to settle the case of the petitioners on 15.10.2008. Even respondent No.2 wrote to General Manager, Irrigation Department, Panchkula, for settling the case on 6.11.2008. On 22.4.2009, the petitioners were informed that the case of ex-gratia employment was rejected on the ground that the deceased was more than 55 years of age at the time of death and also on the ground that the monthly income of the family members was `7202/- and, thus, the case was not covered under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees, Rules, 2003 (for short, “2003 Rules). The petitioners would claim that they in fact are entitled to ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance of `5,00,000/- as 2003 Rules have been modified in the year 2005, followed by new Rules in the year 2006. As per the petitioners, their case would be covered by either Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19983 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: Dependents of Deceased Government Employees, Rules, 2005 (for short, “2005 Rules) or Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees, Rules, 2006 (for short, “2006 Rules”) Rules as the same has been rejected in the year 2009. Prayer accordingly is for payment of `5,00,000/- as financial assistance. The respondents would dispute the claim made by the petitioners and would point out that deceased Midha Singh had died, when he was more than 55 years of age. Even the family income of the deceased was `7202/- at the relevant time and hence, the petitioners were not entitled to assistance under the compassionate assistance Rules. It is further pointed out that the case of the petitioners would not be covered either under 2005 Rules or 2006 Rules as the petitioners do not fall under the definition of `indigent family' as per the criteria laid down in Rule 6 of 2003 Rules as well as 2005 Rules. In this regard, it is pointed out that monthly income of son of the deceased is more than `6000/- as he is working as JBT Teacher and, thus, this is not a case where the petitioners are entitled and eligible to receive compassionate assistance. Further, it is disclosed that late Midha Singh had left behind 6 legal heirs but the present writ petition is filed by 4 L.Rs only and, thus, the claim would not be maintainable on this ground as well. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19983 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: The Scheme of financial assistance is basically meant for providing assistance to a family who is left without a bread-earner due to sudden death and where the family is in need of any immediate assistance as having no adequate means to sustain. There may not be a need to provide any financial assistance on compassionate ground where the family has adequate means to support and there are other earning members in the family. It is noticed that one of son of deceased employee is serving as a JBT Teacher. That perhaps is the reason that petitioner No.2 had made an application for compassionate appointment, rather than any of the sons of deceased employee coming forward to seek employment on compassionate assistance. It is also noticeable that the deceased employee was 55 years old at the time of his death and as such, the petitioners may not be covered under the Scheme for grant of compassionate assistance being not eligible as per the criteria for grant of assistance in terms of Rule 8 of 2003 Rules. As per this Rule, for being eligible, the family has to be an indigent. For being considered indigent, the monthly income of the family should not exceed `6,000/- per month and where it so exceeds this limit, then the family is not considered as indigent. The family income of the petitioners is `7202/-. Thus, the case of the petitioners for grant of assistance would not be covered by 2003 Rules. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19983 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: One of the essential criteria for grant of ex-gratia appointment is that the eligible member of the family should be completely dependent on the deceased Government employee. The eligibility criteria under 2005 Rules continues to be the same as far as monthly family income is concerned. Accordingly, 2005 Rules would also not help the cause of the petitioners. Even under 2006 Rules, the financial assistance is available depending upon the age of the deceased employee. The pay and other allowances last drawn are payable for a period of 15 years, if the employee at the time of death had not attained the age of 35 years. This payment is entitled for a period of 12 years or till the date the employee would have retired, if the employee at the time of death was 35 years of age but had not attained the age of 48 years. Otherwise, this assistance is available till the deceased employee had attained the age of superannuation. Thus, the financial assistance under 2006 Rules may also not be available to the petitioners, considering the age of the deceased employee. In view of the above noted position, no case for interference is made out and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. October 26, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE