Civil Writ Petition No.19359 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: July 17, 2009 Raman Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & 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.R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Another case containing prayer for granting ex-gratia payment. The scheme is for ex-gratia assistance and rules framed governing the payment of ex-gratia assistance. Still a large number of people are made to run to the courts for getting the necessary relief. Some thoughts at the Government level may be called for to avoid this unwarranted litigation. A proper application of the rules formulated is the need. Civil Writ Petition No.19359 of 2008 : 2 : The facts noticed in brief are that the father of the petitioner Ram Singh, who was working as Sub Inspector in Food and Supplies department expired on 25.6.1993 while he was in service. He left behind a widow, two daughters and the petitioner- son, who was minor at that time. None of the family members had any government job and, thus, the family had no source of livelihood. Mother of the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. She, being illiterate, could not be offered any job. The department told her that as and when her son became major, he would be provided a job. She was accordingly advised to approach the Department again when her son became major. This was communicated to her through letter dated 20.5.1994. The petitioner passed matriculation in the year 2001 and became major in the month of April, 2002. Petitioner's mother accordingly applied for seeking appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground and submitted the requisite certificate as well. She was informed through letter dated 18.11.2002 that her claim for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. Petitioner accordingly filed Civil Writ Petition No.5223 of 2004 (Raman Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others), praying for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner, however, withdrew said writ petition with liberty to approach the respondents for ex-gratia assistance under the new policy. The order passed by this court in this regard on 9.9.2005 is as under:- “The ld. Counsel for the petitioner prays that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents for ex-gratia Civil Writ Petition No.19359 of 2008 : 3 : payment under the new policy. Allowed as prayed. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. In case the petitioner files a representation within one month from today, the same shall be disposed off by the respondents within four months thereafter. Dasti.” The petitioner accordingly submitted a representation on 22.11.2005, but no decision was communicated to him. He served a legal notice through a counsel on 22.1.2008 seeking compliance of the order dated 9.9.2005. The petitioner was informed that representation submitted by him has already been decided and communication in this regard was sent to him on 24.4.2008. The claim of the petitioner for ex-gratia payment was also rejected on 26.5.2006 and copy of this order is at Annexure P-8. It is stated in the order, Annexure P-8, that the petitioner did not file any representation within the time limit and the same has accordingly become time barred. Still, the same was examined in the light of new policy. It is then noticed that father of the petitioner died on 25.6.1993 when the petitioner was ten years old. His prayer for compassionate appointment was declined being not covered under the instructions about which the petitioner was so informed. It is then disclosed that policy of compassionate assistance is formulated on 31.3.2003, as per which the dependents of the deceased employee are entitled for ex-gratia help within three years. Noticing the delay of 23 years, it is stated that the matter is not covered by 2003 rules. The representation of the petitioner was accordingly rejected. In response to notice of motion, the respondents have Civil Writ Petition No.19359 of 2008 : 4 : filed reply. The fact that the father of the petitioner was serving as Sub Inspector and that he died on 25.6.1993 is conceded. It is also conceded that mother of the petitioner had submitted an application on 31.8.1993 for appointment of the petitioner. The respondents also concede that through a communication dated 20.5.94 the mother of the petitioner has informed that as and when her son became major, she should intimate the same by sending education qualification certificate. It is also brought out that an application was received from the mother of the petitioner on 18.6.2002 containing request for ex- gratia appointment for her son. As per the respondents, the said request was examined on merit and keeping in view the Government instructions dated 19.11.2001 and the statutory rules of Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, the case was rejected. Reference is made to the instructions dated 19.11.2001, which provide that in case none of the dependents of the deceased is likely to become eligible for appointment within three years, the claim for ex-gratia appointment shall expire and no appointment is to be provided in such case. The respondents would further say that aggrieved against this order the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.5223 of 2004, which was disposed of as noticed above. Respondents aver that in view of these directions issued by the Court, case of the petitioner was examined and has been rejected on the ground that he does not fulfill the conditions laid down in Rule 8(f) of the Rules, 2003. Rule 8 (f) is as under:- “Where dependent of the deceased Government employee does not become eligible for appointment on Civil Writ Petition No.19359 of 2008 : 5 : any ground or within three years of the death of the Government employee he/she shall not be eligible for the ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance also.” Accordingly, the respondents have justified the impugned order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of ex-gratia assistance. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The stand taken in the reply apparently may appear to be justified in terms of the rule position. In equity, however, the stand of the respondents which is a welfare State would appear unjust, inequitable and un-fair. The petitioner was 10 years old when his father died. The late Government employee left behind an illiterate widow (mother of the petitioner). She was not appointed on this ground. She prayed for an employment for the petitioner when she was informed that as and when her son became major, she should intimate it by sending educational qualification certificate of her son. She could have legitimate expectations that her son would be offered a job as soon as he became major and it was a promise held out to her. If there was any condition of limitation of three years in making the offer of employment, that would have been known to the respondents when the mother of the petitioner was so informed to wait for compassionate appointment for her son. She has lived with a hope for getting an employment for her son for all these years. With this hope, she could have struggled to make her both ends meet may be by incurring liability by borrowing from her relatives or other such sources. She and her family have now been left in lurch. On account of a subsequent change in policies and the Civil Writ Petition No.19359 of 2008 : 6 : judgments passed by this Court and the Apex Court may take away the right of the petitioner to seek appointment on compassionate ground, but the respondents, who had held out this promise to the family of the petitioner can be expected to be considerate to consider grant of some assistance on compassionate ground to the petitioner. It can well be urged on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 8(f) of 2003 Rules cannot be applied to his case for grant of ex-gratia financial assistance. 2003 Rules make a provision for providing ex-gratia appointment and in the alternative provide for extending ex-gratia financial assistance. When the father of the petitioner died, at that time the policy was to grant ex-gratia compassionate appointment. Would it be fair to reject the claim of the petitioner for ex-gratia appointment as well as ex-gratia financial assistance on account of a policy which was not then prevalent. The petitioner can very well urge that his case is required to be considered in terms of the policy then applicable which made a provision for ex-gratia compassionate appointment. This claim of the petitioner may not survive in view of the order passed by this Court requiring him to approach the respondents for ex-gratia payment under the new policy. Thus, this order would entitle the petitioner to ask for ex-gratia assistance and respondents are not justified in declining the prayer on the ground that 2003 Rules are not applicable as he could have sought this assistance within a period of three years. It can be said that the claim of the petitioner had survived till it was rejected on 18.11.2002 (Annexure P-4). In fact, ex-gratia assistance would also be payable in terms of instructions No.16/24/86/6GS/2 dated 25.3.1987 and indeed in some of the cases this amount had been paid to some of Civil Writ Petition No.19359 of 2008 : 7 : the dependents. Though the claim of the petitioner has been declined by making reference to the provisions of Rule 8(f), but this Rule is required to be read in the background of Rule 4 of the said Rules, which makes a provision for exercise of option by the dependent of a deceased Government employee either to seek ex-gratia appointment or ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lacs. The period of three years from the date of death of Government employee is laid down for exercising of this option either to seek ex-gratia appointment on compassionate ground or to seek ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance. It is in this background provisions of Rule 8 (f) may have to be read which provides that an employee, who does not become eligible for appointment within a period of three years from the date of death of government employee, he or she shall not be eligible for ex-gratia financial compassionate assistance. Since the case of the grant of ex-gratia appointment on compassionate grounds is not to be considered under 2003 Rules, the same cannot be applied to the petitioner for considering him eligible or ineligible for grant of ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance. Accordingly, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner has not been properly considered for grant of financial assistance for which he was given liberty by this Court to make an application. The respondent-Government is required to see as to which instructions were applicable prior to coming into the force of 2003 Rules as the case of the petitioner was finalised prior to this and then grant him the ex-gratia financial assistance on compassionate ground in terms of the Rules or instructions prevalent Civil Writ Petition No.19359 of 2008 : 8 : prior to the coming into force the 2003 Rules. The present writ petition is allowed to this extent. Impugned order rejecting the ex- gratia financial assistance on compassionate ground is set-aside. Directions are issued to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of observations made above. July 17, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE