C.W.P.No.1387 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.1387 of 2007 Date of Decision : 20.02.2008 Bharto Devi .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri P.R.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.1 Shri Arun Walia and Shri Dinesh Nagar, Advocates, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. -.- 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? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the respondents dated 8.12.2006, Annexure P-14, whereby a compensation of Rs.2.5 lacs was offered to the petitioner as per the ex- gratia policy of the Government. Pyare Lal, deceased husband of the petitioner, died on 17.8.2005. At the time of death of the husband of the petitioner, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “2003 Rules”) were in force. The petitioner sought ex-gratia grant of financial C.W.P.No.1387 of 2007 2 assistance of Rs.5 lacs as per the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “2005 Rules”). It was on 14.11.2006, the Superintending Engineer of the respondents sought sanction of ex-gratia grant of Rs.5 lacs to the petitioner. But the office of the Chief Engineer communicated the sanction of Rs.2.5 lacs only vide communication dated 8.12.2006, Annexure P-14. It is the said communication Annexure P-14, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. In Civil Writ Petition No.19562 of 2006, Murti Devi Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, the State Government was asked to clarify the stand of the State in respect of the word `Pending Cases' in Rule 19 (2) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the `2005 Rules') and such words appearing in Rules 6 & 8 of 2006 Rules. It was also sought to be clarified as to whether the Rules, as exist on the date of death of an employee, would be applicable or not. In the aforesaid case, an affidavit of Mr.M.R.Anand, IAS, Special Secretary to Government, Haryana, General Administration Department, Chandigarh, has been filed pointing out that all the pending cases would be dealt with keeping in view the provisions of the Rules existing at the time of pendency of the cases and not at the time of death of the employee. In the present case, the communication considering the claim of the petitioner for grant of ex-gratia financial assistance was addressed on 14.12.2006 i.e., after coming into force the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, C.W.P.No.1387 of 2007 3 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “2006 Rules”) on 1.8.2006. Therefore, the case of the petitioner for compassionate financial assistance is required to be considered under 2006 Rules. In view of the above, we are of the view that the communication Annexure P-14 is wholly unfair, unjust and is not tenable. Consequently, we set-aside the communication Annexure P-14. Since, the petitioner has opted for ex-gratia financial assistance of Rs.5 lacs, therefore, the respondents are directed to disburse such amount to the petitioner within a period of one month from today. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 20-02-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE