CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8227 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 01, 2010 Rajbir Singh .....Petitioner 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. Tara Chand, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is an unfortunate mother of a Constable who died just after three years of service as a Constable. Son of the petitioner, Anil Kumar, was appointed as constable in Haryana Police on regular basis on 25.11.2003. He died in harness on 3.3.2006. Soon thereafter, the respondent-State issued Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 on 1.8.2006 (hereafter referred to as “2006 Rules”). The petitioner, being mother, was entitled to family pension and other benefits on account of the loss that she suffered. Her case for grant of family pension was accordingly considered and allowed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8227 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: on 2.3.2007. She was also paid death-cum-retirement gratuity as well. Her claim for grant of compassionate assistance under 2006 Rules, however, was declined and she has accordingly filed this writ petition to claim the same. The petitioner has made reference to Rule 3 of 2006 Rules, which provides that eligibility to receive financially assistance under these Rules shall be as per the provisions in the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. The petitioner would accordingly plead that she would be entitled to the grant of compassionate assistance as she has been allowed family pension. Reference is also made to Rule 6, which clearly provides that all pending cases of ex-gratia assistance shall be covered by the new Rules. When the petitioner did not receive any response to the legal notice, she filed the present writ petition. It is stated in the reply that the family pension and death- cum-retirement gratuity has already been released to the petitioner and communication in this regard has been sent to her address. As per the reply, Director General of Police has intimated that a sum of `25,000/- has been sanctioned as ex-gratia grant to the petitioner and the said amount has been paid to her. When the case came up for hearing on 14.7.2010, the State counsel was required to have instructions as to whether the petitioner is to be paid financial assistance in terms of 2006 Rules or not. On 24.9.2010, a statement was made that all the benefits due to the petitioner have been released and the claim for compassionate assistance was not maintainable. The counsel for the petitioner, after CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8227 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: making reference to the legal position, would submit that there is no justification either given or available on record to show that the payment of `25,000/- as ex-gratia assistance would negate the claim of the petitioner for grant of financial assistance. The only reason advanced to deny the compassionate financial assistance, as is disclosed in the short affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Faridabad, is that the son of the petitioner died on 3.3.2006 whereas these Rules came into force w.e.f. 1.8.2006. This stand apparently is misleading to say the least. It can not be expected that the person filing the reply is unaware of the rule position. As is well known and understood that 2006 Rules had been formed after amending the similar rules issued in the year 2003, known as Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, which were further amended in the year 2005 and are known as 2005 Rules. 2003 Rules make a provision for a compassionate assistance of `2.50 lacs, which sum has been increased to `5 lacs as per 2005 Rules. There is virtually no justification to deny the compassionate assistance under these rules even if the stand taken in the additional affidavit is accepted as a gospel truth. How the respondents could deny the compassionate assistance to the petitioner under 2005 Rules as the death was on 3.3.2006, is not disclosed in any manner. These Rules are clearly applicable. Thus, the stand taken in the reply is totally misconceived, misplaced and appears to have been purposely adopted to deny a rightful due to the petitioner. In fact, there are no reasons to deny the applicability of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8227 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: 2006 Rules in view of the clear provision made in Rule 6 thereof. This Rule reads as under:- “All pending cases of ex-gratia assistance shall be covered under the new rules. The calculation of the period and payment shall be made to such cases from the date of notification of these rules. However, the families will have the option to opt for the lump sum ex- gratia grant provided in the Rules, 2003 or 2005, as the case may be, in lieu of the monthly financial assistance provided under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006.” Rule 6 of 2006 Rules categorically provides that ex-gratia assistance shall be covered under the new Rules. The family, which is affected, have been given option to choose either lump-sum ex- gratia grant provided under Rules 2003 or 2005 in lieu of monthly financial assistance or to opt for monthly financial assistance under 2006 Rules. This aspect has already been considered by this court in Civil Writ Petition No.3653 of 2009 (Babita Rani Vs. State of Haryana and others),which was allowed on 2.7.2009. Even the aspect of the applicability of 2003/2005 rules on the ground that death was prior to 1.8.2006 was considered by this court in Babita Rani's case (supra) and it is observed as under:- “In the absence of Rule 6, the respondents could have had some justification to say that these Rules would not apply to the cases where death had taken place prior to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8227 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: the coming into force of 2006 Rules but on the face of Rule 6, they certainly can not be permitted to make such a plea. Without doubt, the case of the petitioner was pending on 1.8.2006, when 2006 Rules came into operation, though the death of her husband was prior to this date. The petitioner has clearly averred in Para 5 of the petition that she had opted for grant of financial assistance in terms of 2006-Rules and these averments have been admitted by the respondents. Still, it is stated that as per the instructions of the Government, the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate financial assistance in terms of 2006-Rules. This stand of the respondent-Government is clearly in violation of the provisions of Rule 6 of 2006 Rules and, thus, is totally misconceived. The respondents could have had some justification to take this stance if the case of the petitioner had been finalized prior to 1.8.2006.” The same issue was again considered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.21775 of 2008 (Usha Kaushik Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on 1.9.2009 and claim allowed. Reference here can also be made to Division Bench judgment of this Court Raj Kumari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And others, 2008 (4) SCT 411, where it is held that all pending cases of ex-gratia compassionate assistance are to be covered under 2006 Rules. It is, thus, clear that the case of the petitioner was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8227 OF 2009 :{ 6 }: pending when 2006 Rules were promulgated. As per operation of Rule 6, the case of compassionate assistance of the petitioner has to be considered under these rules in view of the clear provision made in the Rules, which has been interpreted by this Court on more than one occasions. There is, thus, no justification either offered or forthcoming to deny the financial assistance to the petitioner under 2006 Rules. The action of the respondents, therefore, can not be sustained. Rather, the stand of the respondents is wholly unjustified, unreasonable and unfair. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to monthly financial assistance from the date of notification of 2006 Rules i.e. 1.8.2006. The necessary payment due to the petitioner be released within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner shall not be asked to refund any amount, which she has received as family pension. The amount of family pension received by her may be adjusted against the payment due to the petitioner. The unfair and illegal stand of the respondents has forced the poor petitioner to approach the Court. The respondents refused to make amends when given chance, which shows that they have refused to obey the settled position and, thus, wasted the time of the Court. The respondents, thus, have rendered themselves liable to pay exemplary costs, which are assessed at `25,000/-. December 01, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE