Civil Writ Petition No. 11736 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 11736 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.1.2011. Ganga Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover Present:- Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral) The instant petition has been filed with a prayer that the petitioner be granted ex-gratia payment on account of death of her husband in service. The case of the petitioner is that her husband had been working with the respondent No. 5 since 5.5.1983 and thereafter his services were regularized on 16.3.2006. He expired on 5.2.2008. The petitioner made the claim on the basis of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of deceased Govt. Employee Rules 2003 which reads as under:- “3(d) “deceased Government employee” means a Government employee- (i) appointed on regular basis, and not working on daily wages, casual, apprentice, work charged, adhoc, constractual or re-employment basis; and (ii)who has served the Government for at least 3 years; (iii)who should not have crossed the age of 55 years.” Having placed reliance on the said rules and in particular rule 3(d), learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that she is entitled to the financial assistance. The benefit has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that on the date of his death the husband of the petitioner had not served the Government for atleast three years. The State of Haryana has also filed written statement wherein it has been pleaded in reference to rule 3(d) that since prior Civil Writ Petition No. 11736 of 2010 (O&M) -2- to his regularization the husband of the petitioner was working as part time employee, such a period cannot be construed to be the period spent on regular duty and hence the benefit has rightly been denied when rule 3 (d) (i) and (ii) are read in conjunction with each other. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Kamlesh Vs. State of Haryana and others 2007(1) RSJ 215. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Dharmender Vs. State of Haryana and others 2005 (3) SCT 763. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. There is no quarrel with the proposition which has been laid down by Division Bench judgment of this Court in 2005 (3) SCT 763. The State's competence to frame rules and regulations to harmonize the grant of benefits in the event of an employee dying in harness cannot be questioned and neither can the legitimacy and propriety unless they are shown to be arbitrary. The Division Bench Judgments of this Court are thus dealing with the matters where legitimacy and propriety of such rules was being questioned. However, in the Division Bench Judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has held that a person who has spent in harness a year with the employer on adhoc basis, than in such eventuality the period spent by such an employee on adhoc basis may be considered for the grant of financial benefits ostensibly on following the same logic that a person who spends some time on adhoc basis, his service is to be construed and considered for grant of pension and other monetary benefits. If the case of the petitioner is to be seen then the facts are not in dispute. The husband of the petitioner has served respondent No. 5 since 1983 on part time basis and his services were regularized in 2006, implying thereby that the petitioner's utility to the department has been recognized and legitimized by such regularization. It is his misfortune that he died in 2008 and merely Civil Writ Petition No. 11736 of 2010 (O&M) -3- because he has not completed three years of regular service would not dis- entitle him to the financial assistance that his dependents may seek. Even the rule defines the employee as a person who is in regular service and Clause 3(d) (i) excludes a person working on daily wages and casual, apprentice and a work charged, adhoc, contractual or an employee working on re-employment basis. This rule nowhere says that the employe should be a regular employee for three years; although such an interpretation is tempting. In any eventuality the husband of the petitioner having served the respondents since 1983 would certainly be covered under Clause 3(d) (ii) and the claim of the petitioner cannot be defeated merely on the ground that her husband had not completed three years of regular service as even otherwise, also if the case of the respondents is accepted, then the period spent by the employee prior to his regularization is also required to be counted for granting him the financial benefits. Having regard to the aforesaid and the observations made by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in 2007(1) RSJ 215, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner merits acceptance. The writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to the benefits that have been claimed by her in the instant writ petition which may be disbursed to her as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months. (MAHESH GROVER) 5.1.2011. JUDGE Reema