Regular Second Appeal No.1065 of 2010 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 26, 2010 Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd., Panchkula & others ...Appellants VERSUS Roopa Devi ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited has filed this appeal to impugn the judgment passed by Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Hisar. Respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit when she was denied ex-gratia appointment on account of death of her husband Ram Kishan, who was working in the appellant-Board. Ram Kishan Regular Second Appeal No.1065 of 2010 (O&M) : 2 : had died on 2.9.2000 in an accident during the course of service. One civil suit No.384-C of 2000-2003 was filed by one Santosh claiming herself to be widow of Ram Kishan. This suit was dismissed on 17.4.2004. Respondent-plaintiff has accordingly been declared as legally wedded wife of said late Ram Kishan. In this background, she submitted an application for ex-gratia appointment. This application, Exh.P1, was forwarded on 20.11.2000. Despite follow up action, nothing transpired. Ultimately, she was informed through letter dated 21.11.2006 that as per the new policy dated 3.8.2006, the respondent-plaintiff was entitled only to the monetary assistance under different policies issued in the years 2003, 2005 and 2006. The respondent-plaintiff, thus, had to file a suit on 19.2.2007 seeking appointment on compassionate ground due to death of her husband. The suit was decreed. Appeal against the same has also been dismissed. The appellant-Board has now filed the present Regular Second Appeal. Counsel for the appellant-Board has drawn my attention to the stand taken on behalf of the Board in response to the notice issued in the suit. It is specifically pleaded that as per the Haryana Government Policy dated 3.8.2006 (Ex.P5), the respondent-plaintiff would not be entitled to ex-gratia appointment. Copy of the written statement has been placed before me where it is clearly mentioned that the Government of Haryana had introduced the new rules for grant of assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Govt. Employees Rules. As per this provision, ex-gratia grant of Rs.2,50,000/- where death occurred prior to 18.11.2005 and Rs.5,00,000/- under Rules 2005 where death has Regular Second Appeal No.1065 of 2010 (O&M) : 3 : taken place after 18.11.2005. It is further mentioned that plaintiff did not opt for the scheme of lump-sum ex-gratia grant. She was allowed the financial assistance of a sum equal to the pay and allowances that was last drawn by the deceased employee in the normal course without she having raised a specific claim under existing scheme. Thus, as per the appellant-Board, the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to ex-gratia payment in terms of the policy dated 3.8.2006 (Ex.D6). The courts, however, have allowed the prayer for compassionate appointment. Counsel for the appellants is justified in submitting that as per the policy issued in the year 2006, the appointment on the compassionate basis is not available and now only a provision for compassionate assistance alone is made. Para 6 of the policy (Ex.D5) also provides that this policy is available to all pending cases of ex-gratia assistance and all such pending cases shall be covered by these rules issued in the year 2006. Since the case of the respondent-plaintiff had not been finalised when the scheme of compassionate assistance was introduced in the year 2006, this policy will govern the case of the respondent-plaintiff and she would be now entitled to get ex-gratia assistance. The counsel for the appellants also points out that the employee died in the year 2000 and suit was filed in the year 2007. As per him, need of the compassion to tide over difficult situation would not be there. The counsel for the respondent-plaintiff very fairly states that the offer as made would be acceptable to his client. He accordingly pleads that respondent-plaintiff should be granted ex- gratia assistance in terms of 2006 Rules. There being consensus Regular Second Appeal No.1065 of 2010 (O&M) : 4 : between the parties, the judgments under appeal may call for interference. The judgments would need to be modified as per the agreed terms between the parties. The appeal is allowed. The judgments under appeal are set-aside. The respondent-plaintiff would be entitled to receive financial assistance in terms of 2006 Rules. The arrears and all other benefits as stipulated under 2006 Rules would be released to her from the date these rules were introduced, i.e., 3.8.2006. The needful be done within a period of six months. Fresh decree sheet should be prepared by Registry of this Court. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly allowed in above terms. April 26, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE