IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1282 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 19.11.2009 State of Haryana & others. -----Appellants Vs. Smt. Santosh. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the appellants. --- ORDER: 1. The State is aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition against order dated 23.11.2007 withdrawing financial assistance granted to the respondent. 2. Husband of the respondent served the State of Haryana and died while in service on 22.5.2004. She made application for compassionate appointment as per policy of the State and her application was kept pending. Meanwhile, Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short, “2006 Rules”) were framed, which provided for financial assistance to the family LPA No.1282 of 2009 members of an employee who died while serving. The benefits of financial assistance is not applicable to the family members of an employee who got family pension. The respondent was granted financial assistance, as per 2006 Rules, but later, the same were sought to be withdrawn which the respondent challenged. 3. Learned Single Judge held that since on the date of commencement of 2006 Rules, application of the respondent for compassionate appointment was pending and the Rules applied to the pending cases, there was no legal bar to grant of assistance to the respondent, particularly when the respondent surrendered the benefit of family pension which had been extended to her prior to enforcement of 2006 Rules. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the respondent received family pension, she was not eligible to grant of financial assistance, even if her case was treated to be pending and the rules applied. 6. This submission cannot be accepted. Grant of benefits of provisions of 2006 Rules could be available to the respondent whose application was pending, on her exercising such option. Even though she could not get benefit of family pension as well as financial assistance, she could choose better of the two benefits, if her case was covered by 2006 Rules. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 2 LPA No.1282 of 2009 7. However, we find merit in the contention that decision to withdraw financial assistance was not malafide, even if erroneous and in such a situation, the last part of the order of learned Single Judge awarding costs and directing to determine the person responsible for passing the impugned order and recovering the same from his salary, is not called for. Accordingly, we delete this part of the impugned order. 9. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 19, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3