CWP No.18542 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18542 of 2007 Date of decision 19.12.2008 Radha Devi .....Appellant versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehtab S. Gill. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. S. K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. K. Kannan, J. I) Scope of enquiry 1. An offer of ex-gratia payment under compassionate appointment scheme was repulsed by the petitioner, at one stage, on an assumption that she was entitled to an appointment, but she finds herself in a spot when ultimately the Government pleads limitation for grant of the bounty of even the ex-gratia payment. II) Ex-gratia financial assistance and rejection by petitioner 2. The husband of the petitioner was working as a Constable and died in harness on 17.12.1999. The Superintendent of Police had recommended to the DIG of Police, Rohtak, the case of compassionate appointment for the petitioner on 18.12.2000. The petitioner was 24 years of age and had to support 3 minor childern in the range of ages between 5 to CWP No.18542 of 2007 -2- 8 years. Evidently the claim had been made in time and she was fully entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. The Government did not act as per their scheme immediately and took their own time till a communication was sent by the Superintendent of Police on 19.5.2003that as per the rules of the year 2003, the petitioner could be given an ex gratia payment of Rs.2,50,000/- in the place of Government service. Had she received the payment at that time there would have been no further need for adjudication. But unfortunately she rejected the offer and prayed for appointment only and this was duly informed by the Superintendent of Police to the Director General on 9.12.2003 and forwarded her request again for employment. III) Petitioner's persistent claims and its rejection by State 3. The fresh request on 9.12.2003 had not been disposed of by the State. A reminder request was again forwarded by the Superintendent of Police with endorsement dated 14.11.2006 in the application of the petitioner. Probably the petitioner grew wise and she wrote a letter on 18.5.2007 to the Superintendent of Police, when neither the job nor the money was forthcoming. She requested that amount of Rs.2,50,000/- at least could be paid as a compassionate financial assistance or the job. This letter went unresponded and communication was again made 2 months later on 14.7.2007. The Government at that time rejected the claim and communicated the letter impugned in writ petition contending that her claim was barred with limitation. The respondent filed the objection to the petitioner's claim and while setting out that the petitioner was not entitled to the amount stated that the period of 3 years set forth under the ex gratia claim had expired and the claim had become time barred. CWP No.18542 of 2007 -3- IV) Compassionate appointment or ex-gratia payment based on relevant rules -nature of right. 4. We are alive to the proposition of law that compassionate appointment itself is an exception to Article 14 and the terms of scheme providing for compassionate appointment have to be punctiliously observed. The scheme has a lofty object of weaning a family in distress from destitution and to relieve the immediate family members from deprivation and poverty. The Superintendent of Police himself had recommended the case for appointment of the petitioner as a person in indigent circumstances through his communication to the Director General of Police and therefore it could not be contended that the petitioner had sufficient resources and therefore did not accept the money. If she had rejected the offer dated 26.5.2003, the offer itself was belated, considering the fact that the petitioner's husband died on 17.12.1999. The Government had taken 4 years to apply its own scheme and when she was not taking a moral stand of refusing any form of assistance, but she was only pleading for the alternative of employment it could not be taken as an application under the scheme for the first time. There cannot be literally a waiver in a situation like this, where the petitioner was a semi-literate of having studied only upto 4th standard, as even the details filled up in the performa make it evident. The claim of the petitioner itself had been under active consideration as could be seen from the fact that Superintendent of Police had again sent a letter of communication on 9.12.2003 to the Director General of Police and recommended that her claim was valid and not barred in Column 15 of the proforma. The Superintendent of Police has also stated that she was eligible for being considered for appointment. The file which CWP No.18542 of 2007 -4- was kept current till 17.11.2006 cannot become stale or time barred by the only fact that since the assistance had not been provided to the petitioner for over 8 years the petitioner has lost the right to claim the amount against the State. The contention of bar of limitation is possible if the claim itself had not been made within the time provided under the Scheme. When the scheme contemplates an ex gratia payment or employment, a right accrues to the individual and the right had been exercised within the time by making a claim. It ought to be seen that after the initial refusal of the petitioner to receive the ex gratia payment on 26.5.2003, the Government did not close the file but was still keeping it under consideration by forwarding a request even in the year 2006 and recommending her claim to be valid and her entitlement to the amount to be made within time. The rejection of the petitioner's claims under the scheme is therefore not tenable. The Government ought not to plead limitation in such a case when the plea was under active consideration by State. Far from alleviating the trouble of a young widow having to support the 3 childern, the government by its ultimate refusal of any relief has completely deprived the benefit of compassionate assistance to the petitioner. V) Present disposition 5. The 2003 Scheme has been amended in the year 2006 and we direct that the respondents consider the claim for payment of the ex gratia amount as admissible under the relevant rules on the basis that a claim is still pending and grant an amount due to her under the said scheme. The consideration of the petitioner claim shall be taken up without any further delay however not beyond a period of 3 months from the date of disposal of this writ petition. CWP No.18542 of 2007 -5- The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (MEHTAB S. GILL) (K. KANNAN) JUDGE JUDGE 19.12.2008. A. Kaundal Internet Yes/No