CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12436 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 18, 2009 Savitri Devi .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. A widow has filed this petition to seek relief of ex-gratia amount of Rs.five lacs under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (for short “2005 Rules”)on account of death of her husband. She herself is in the employment of Government. Question, thus, to be seen is whether she would be entitled to seek this ex-gratia compassionate assistance under the Rules or not. Husband of the petitioner, Giarsi Lal, was employed as a Class IV employee (Sweeper) in Police Department and was serving at Police Line, Narnaul. He died on 24.2.2006, statedly after serving CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12436 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: for about 54 years. The petitioner thereafter applied for job for her son under ex-gratia scheme and in the alternative she asked for ex- gratia assistance. The petitioner claims that she has made number of rounds to the office of Superintendent of Police, Narnaul and had even gone to the office of D.G.P., Haryana but has not got any satisfactory reply. On 18.5.2006, the petitioner gave a written application in the office of D.G.P. for grant of job under ex-gratia scheme to her son. Neither the job has been given to the son of the petitioner nor any ex-gratia benefit otherwise released in her favour. The petitioner then served a legal notice for providing job on compassionate ground or financial assistance, which has now been replied on 19.2.2009. The petitioner has now been informed that she is already employed with Municipal Council, Narnaul, and she, thus, is not entitled to grant of job under ex-gratia scheme, her total emoluments being 6987/-. The petitioner has accordingly impugned this communication seeking direction for ex-gratia assistance of Rs.five lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents ought to have paid the financial assistance to the petitioner as she would be entitled to the same in terms of Rule 4 of 2005 Rules. The counsel would refer to the provisions of Rule 4(1), which makes a provision for preference of option to be furnished within six months from the date of death of the Government employee praying for either ex-gratia appointment on compassionate ground or alternatively ex-gratia financial assistance to the family of the deceased. The reading of this Rule would clearly show that ex- gratia appointment on compassionate grounds to a member of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12436 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: family is for one who was “completely dependent” on the deceased employee and is in extreme financial distress due to the loss of the deceased. Similar is the position for payment of ex-gratia financial assistance which is in alternative to the ex-gratia appointment on compassionate ground. The condition of extreme financial distress due to the loss of deceased would equally apply for ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance as is the requirement in case of ex-gratia appointment on compassionate ground. Analysis of Rule 4.1 (a) and (b) would make it appear so, which is reproduced below:- “(a) ex-gratia appointment on compassionate grounds to a member of the family who was “completely dependent” on the deceased employee and is in extreme financial distress due to the loss of the deceased, namely, the Government employee who dies in “service”. (b) ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family of the deceased, over and above, all other service benefits like ex-gratia grant due to his/her family, to be paid @ Rs.5(five) lacs in case of the family of the deceased Government employee was of the age of 55 years or above, on the date of death); if the Government employee dies at the age of 55 years or thereafter, his family shall not be eligible for ex-gratia appointment.” The key words are “is in extreme financial distress due to loss of the deceased.” This aspect would further be clear from the contents of Rule 8, which regulates the criteria for eligibility under 2005 Rules. This Rule says that the eligibility under these Rules is when the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12436 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution and dependent upon the deceased/missing Government employee. Thus, relief from financial destitution of the dependents is the requirement and the underline aim being immediate assistance to the family, which is indigent. The Rule has further specified that the income of the family shall not exceed Rs.6,000/- per month from all sources, other than family pension. Obviously, it means that if income is more than this amount, the family can not be taken to be indigent, which would deserve immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. Specific provision further is made in this Rule that where the spouse of the deceased/missing Government employee is already in Government service, then no other dependent member shall be eligible for appointment or ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance. In view of these specific provisions, there is hardly any scope left to interpret the Rules as sought by the petitioner to see her eligibility to receive this compassionate assistance. The submission made by the counsel that the criteria of income, as referred to in Rule 8(b) is to be considered for the purpose of appointment and not for grant of ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance, if accepted, would certainly lead to doing violation to the provisions made in the Rule which is worded in unambiguous and simple language. The provisions of Rule 8(b) and Rule 8(d) would need to be read together. It is so very clearly provided that when spouse of a deceased Government employee is already in Government service, then no dependent member shall be eligible either for appointment or for ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance. For ready CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12436 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: reference provisions of Rule 8 (a) to (d) are reproduced below:- “(a) The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution and dependent upon the deceased/missing Government employee. (b) The monthly income of the family shall not exceed Rs.6000/- per month, from all sources other than family pension. For this purpose, the income of the entire family of the deceased/missing Government employee will be taken into account and not just the income of the dependent who has applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. (c ) The applicant for appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant requirement rules. (d) Where spouse of the deceased/missed Government employee is already in Government service, no other dependent member shall be eligible for appointment or ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance.” In fact, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner would be against the very concept and the spirit behind the enactment of these Rules. The object of Rules, as can be seen from Rule 2, is to assist the family of the deceased/missing Government employee in tiding over the emergency situation resulting from the loss of bread earner by giving either of the options of ex-gratia appointment or ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12436 OF 2009 :{ 6 }: family. Once the spouse is in a Government service, the family would not be in any emergent need or situation, which would normally result from the loss of a bread earner as such a family would be having a member who is earning and, thus, the family could not be termed to be indigent which would deserve immediate assistance for any relief. Incidentally, it may need a notice that 2005 Rules have since been repealed on issuance of new Rules w.e.f 1.8.2006. The criteria as laid down in Rule 8 would clearly rule out the eligibility of the petitioner to receive this ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed in limine. August 18, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE