R.S.A.No. 2665 of 2009 (O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2665 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 20, 2009 State of Haryana ---Appellant versus Smt. Santosh Devi ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Ms, Maloo Chanal, DAG, Haryana *** SABINA, J. Santosh Devi-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the order passed by defendant No. 2 dated 6.10.2005 vide which her claim for grant of financial assistance of Rs. 2.5 lacs under the Ex Gratia Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”) had been declined, was illegal, null and void. Suit of the plaintiff was decreed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2007. In appeal the said judgment and decree were upheld by District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.2009. Hence the State has filed the present appeal. The facts of the case, as notice by learned District Judge in para R.S.A.No. 2665 of 2009 (O&M) {2} 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “Sh. Jaipal Singh was working with Police Tele Communication Wing, Haryana. He died during service on 16.8.1994. Complete family particulars along with the death certificate were submitted by the plaintiff to the defendants. She had applied for reservation of employment for her minor son Dalbir Singh under ex gratia scheme to be given after Dalbir Singh attained the age of majority. He was only four years old at the time of death of Jaipal Singh. The defendants did not inform the plaintiff of their decision in this regard. They kept the matter pending for many years. Vide memo dated 21.10.2004 of defendant No. 3, option was demanded from the plaintiff of employment under the ex gratia scheme or for the grant of financial assistance of Rs, 2,50,000/-. In compliance with that demand, the plaintiff gave her option for grant of Rs. 2.50,000/- vide her option dated 2.11.2004. The plaintiff was informed about rejection her claim for ex gratia financial assistance vide letter dated 7.3.2005 on the ground of limitation. According to her, her request for reserving a post for her minor son till his attaining the age of majority was never rejected by the defendants. The defendants had not even asked the plaintiff for the option for any such thing before sending their letter dated 21.10.2004. The plaintiff applied for financial assistance under the letter dated 21.10.2004 and the same could not be rejected on the ground of delay. The claim of the plaintiff to ex gratia financial assistance is claimed to have been R.S.A.No. 2665 of 2009 (O&M) {3} wrongly rejected. She has further claimed that she has a legal right to get either job in the department for her son or to get ex gratia financial assistance of Rs. 2,50,000/- or the modified amount along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of demand of option till the date of payment. When her efforts in this direction failed, she gave a legal notice dated 28.9.2005 under Section 80 CPC. The defendants did not do the needful and hence the suit. The defendants have resisted the suit. They have taken a few preliminary objections. According to them, the husband of the plaintiff died on 16.8.1994 and the plaintiff applied for financial assistance of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 16.11.2004 after a period of 10 years of the death. According to the defendants, as per the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, the period prescribed for giving opinion is three years from the date of death. In the amended rules of option is three years from the date of death. In the amended rules of 2005, this period is changed to six months. It is further averred that the case of the plaintiff was considered by defendant No. 2 and was found to be invalid being time barred. It is further averred that after the death of her husband when forms for ex gratia assistance were completed, the plaintiff did not express her willingness for employment. According to the defendants, she made application dated 4.10.1999 for entering the name of her son Dalbir Singh for employment in the police department on R.S.A.No. 2665 of 2009 (O&M) {4} attaining the age of 18 years. She was told vide memo dated 9.12.1999 that as per the Director General of Police, Haryana, the name of such candidate could not be entered. The plaintiff, moreover, did not submit any application from 1994 to 1999 for employment of her son. The State Government then changed the previous ex gratia policy and notified Rules of 2003 under which also the plaintiff is not entitled to financial assistance. It is further claimed that as the case of the plaintiff was considered and rejected as time barred, the present suit is not maintainable. In reply on merits, the date of birth of the husband of the plaintiff as 16.8.1994 is admitted. It is also admitted that forms of ex gratia assistance were completed after the death of her husband. The other averments of the plaintiff are denied. It is claimed that the dependent did not express her willingness for government job. It is further averred that name of a dependent who did not attain the age of 15 years could not be entered for recruitment in police department as per rules. It is denied that the plaintiff was not informed in this regard. After asserting that the State Government had changed the ex gratia policy in the year 2003 and that the plaintiff applied for the ex gratia financial assistance of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 16.11.2004, it is reiterated that the claim of the plaintiff was declined being time barred vide order dated 7.10.2005. It is further averred that the financial assistance under the Rules of 2003 was to be applied within three years of the death and as the same was not done, the claim was declined. The period of R.S.A.No. 2665 of 2009 (O&M) {5} limitation is said to have been changed to six months in the rules of the year 2005. These facts are appropriately reiterated in reply to the contents of the paragraphs of the plaint. Serving of legal notice by the plaintiff upon the defendants is admitted. The contents of the same are denied to be true. The other averments of the plaintiff are denied and the suit is prayed to be dismissed.” On pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial court:- (1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration to the effect that order passed by defendant No. 2 dated 6.10.2005 conveyed by defendant No. 3 through endorsement 32524-26 rejecting the claim of the plaintiff being illegal, null and void on the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs. 2.5 lacs or any enhanced assistance under the Ex-gratia Scheme as per demand notice regarding the option served by defendants on 21.10.04 upon the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent annum? OPP (3)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred according to ex gratia employment rules? OPD (4)Whether the civil suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (5)Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction for try and entertaining the present suit? OPD (6)Relief. R.S.A.No. 2665 of 2009 (O&M) {6} After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that this appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, Jaipal Singh, husband of the plaintiff had died during his service on 16.8.1994. As per the witnesses examined by the defendants, plaintiff had been furnishing the particulars and details as required for her to be considered under the Scheme. Plaintiff had sought initially that her son be given a job under the Scheme. Son of the plaintiff did not possess the requisite age, qualifications. He could not be given appointment under the Scheme. Plaintiff had applied for financial assistance on 4.10.1999. As per the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of the deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, the period prescribed for giving option is three years from the date of death. Plaintiff had applied for financial assistance on 16.11.2004. A communication Ex. P-1 was also made to the plaintiff vide letter dated 21.10.2004 by Superintendent of Police, Telecommunications, Haryana Panchkula asking the plaintiff to submit her clear option either for providing government job or for grant of financial assistance of Rs. 2.5 lacs. Vide impugned memo dated 7.10.2005, the claim of the plaintiff for exgratia employment was rejected on the ground that death had occurred on 16.8.1994 whereas the claim had been made on 14.7.2005. As per letter dated 31.3.2003 by Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, addressed to all the heads of the departments in Haryana, the Scheme of 2003 was conveyed to them. Learned District Judge in its judgment has observed that a perusal of the letter Ex. D-3 dated 9.12.1999 reveals that the request of the plaintiff for reserving a post for her son was not declined and rather it was only mentioned that the case had been returned in original with the R.S.A.No. 2665 of 2009 (O&M) {7} remarks that the name of the dependent of the deceased would be entered who was above the age of 15 years. The learned Additional Judge after appreciating the evidence on record has held that the claim of the plaintiff was still pending consideration and in these circumstance, she had option either for government job or for grant of financial assistance. Moreover plaintiff was granted ex-gratia grant to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- on 11.1.2005. Hence, the claim of the plaintiff could not be said to be time barred. Hence the courts below in facts and circumstances of the present case had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting her ex gratia financial assistant for an amount of Rs. 2, 50,000/-. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration. Accordingly the same is dismissed., (SABINA) JUDGE July 20, 2009 PARAMJIT