IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19184 of 2010 Date of Decision:8.11.2011 Ajanta Kumari .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others . .. Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Dalal, A.A.G. Haryana for the State. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5. **** 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? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is two fold. First is for quashing the impugned order dated 27.8.2010 (P-7) passed by respondent No.3 vide which the claim of the petitioner for grant of monthly financial assistance under Haryana Compassionate Financial Assistance to the Dependent of Deceased Govt. Employee Rule 2006 has been rejected. Second prayer is for quashing of impugned order dated 9.5.2008 (P-1) vide which husband of the petitioner was reverted from the post of Foreman Grade-I to Foreman Grade-II after his death. With respect to the first prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said claim has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has got remarried. It is contended that the petitioner has remarried her deceased husband's younger brother. It was a “Kareva” marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on the judgment passed by this Court in case Daljit Kaur vs. Union of CWP No.19184 of 2010 -2- India and others 2007(1) RSJ 231 to argue that if widow gets married to her deceased husband's brother then she cannot be denied the claim on the ground that she has got remarried. It is not disputed that this fact was not considered by the respondents. With respect to the second prayer, it is stated that the petitioner was reverted from the post of Foreman Grade-I to Foreman Grade-II after the death of the husband of the petitioner. The said order could not have been passed after the death of petitioner's husband. Admittedly, this fact too was not considered by the respondents. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the order dated 27.8.2010 (P-7) and order dated 9.5.2008(P- 1) and the matter is remanded back to the respondents, who shall consider the claim of the petitioner afresh after taking into consideration the argument raised by the petitioner that she got married to her deceased husband's younger brother as well as the fact that the order dated 9.5.2008 (P-1) was passed after the death of petitioner's husband. In case the petitioner is entitled to the said relief claimed by her, the same shall be disbursed within two months thereafter. However, in case the said claim is rejected, the respondents shall pass a speaking order. 8.11.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE