CWP No.12612 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.12612 of 2007 Date of Decision: 17.04.2009 Smt. Om Wati ...Petitioner V E R S U S State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) The husband of the petitioner was murdered while in service on 14.3.2000. She applied for compassionate appointment on 19.5.2000 so that she could look after her minor children. Respondent No.4 requested respondent No.2 to provide Government job to the petitioner vide letter dated 20.6.2000. Vide letter dated 22.6.2001, respondent No.4 again recommended the case of the petitioner to provide her government job in police department or in education department as per her qualification. On 9.8.2001, respondent No.2 after considering the case of the petitioner requested the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana to provide Government job to the petitioner in education department. Thereafter, petitioner had even undergone the physical test conducted by respondent No.4, however, she was not provided any government job and she received another communication from the office of respondent No.4 asking the CWP No.12612 of 2007 -2- petitioner to give her option with regard to acceptance of Rs.2.5 lacs as compassionate money as per the amended rule 2003. Thereafter, vide letter dated 16.1.2006, she was informed that since her case was filed being time barred, her claim had been rejected. As matters stand, neither she was given a job nor the lump sum assistance, which has resulted in the filing of this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his claim to the grant of lump sum assistance under the 2003 policy which was offered to the petitioner. In my opinion, the ground taken to deny the benefits to the petitioner viz. that a case was time barred would does not stand scrutiny of law, particularly in view of the earlier letter from the respondents asking her to give an option with regard to acceptance of Rs.2.5 lacs of compassionate compensation. The stand of the State-respondents that they can now rescind their offer of one time lump sum assistance is clearly unjustified. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the lessor relief now sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner is granted. The respondents are directed to accept option of the petitioner for one time lump sum assistance as per their letter dated 8.6.2003. The necessary benefits be released to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 17, 2009 JUDGE ashish