C.W.P No. 1200 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 1200 of 2007 Date of decision : March 25, 2009 Smt. Krishna Devi, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The husband of the petitioner was appointed on 16.6.1994 as driver on contract basis in the Haryana Roadways Jind Depot during strike period. However, on 7.1.1998 he expired in an accident. The Haryana Government framed a policy on 23.3.1998, as per which the services of all those drivers and conductors who were appointed on contract basis and completed two years services during the period from 6.1.1994 to 7.1.1998, were to be regularized. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner's husband were regularized w.e.f 7.1.1998 (the date when he expired). The petitioner C.W.P No. 1200 of 2007 ::2:: applied for her employment under Ex-gratia Scheme, 1995. The respondents rejected this claim in view of the fact that the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 came in force wherein it was provided to give a sum of Rs.2.50 lacs as financial assistance to the dependent of the deceased employee. The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment for her son or to release the financial assistance. However, the said claim has also been rejected by the respondents on the ground that a minimum period of three years' regular service is required for claiming compassionate appointment or compensation under the ex-gratia scheme. As regards the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the same is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Kamlesh vs State of Haryana, 2006(4) SCT 658, wherein it was held as follows :- “If Rule 3(d)(ii) of the Rules is read ejusdem generis as suggested by the learned State counsel rather than interpreting both the clauses independently of each other then the basic object of the rules of ameliorating the sufferings of dependents of deceased Government employee would stand defeated. Such is not the intention of the rule making authority. It is trite to observe that socio-economic legislation is required to be interpreted by keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by such legislation. Moreover, Rule 3(d)(ii) has to be read down by adding words regular service. The plain meaning of the Rule is that an employee should have C.W.P No. 1200 of 2007 ::3:: served the Government for at least for three years which the husband of the petitioner has done. It is also pertinent to notice that any ad hoc service followed by regularization is to qualify for pension as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) PLR 223. Therefore, we regret our inability to agree with the learned State counsel and reject the interpretation preferred by the respondents in the impugned orders dated 7.6.2006 (Annexure P-3) and 18.8.2005 (Annexure P-5).” In the present case, as the husband of the petitioner died after regularization of service and after completing three years' service, the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner can not be justified. As regards the claim for ex-gratia compensation is concerned, the same is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Raj Kumari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and others, 2008(4) RSJ 765. The said judgment has been followed by this Court in CWP No.12302 of 2007, Smt. Shanti Devi vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 16.2.2009. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant benefit under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the same is not granted within the stipulated period, the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ C.W.P No. 1200 of 2007 ::4:: 8% per annum from the date of accrual till actual payment. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 25, 2009. JUDGE `kk'