C.W.P No. 888 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 888 of 2009 Date of decision : May 08, 2009 Ms Maya Devi, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. S.K.Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The husband of the petitioner died on 17.7.2005 while in service. The petitioner submitted an application on 3.8.2005 for compassionate appointment under the ex-gratia scheme. She stated in the application that she did not want the ex-gratia amount. She again submitted a representation on 11.5.2006 re-iterating her claim for compassionate appointment. Since no action was taken, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 16.5.2006. Thereafter, in the month of C.W.P No. 888 of 2009 ::2:: April 2006, respondent No.3 sent a bank draft of Rs.2.5 lacs to the petitioner but she refused to accept the same. She sent a letter on 20.11.2006 re-iterating her claim for compassionate appointment. She preferred an appeal before the Chief Secretary, which was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the year 2003, Government of Haryana framed rules/regulations on compassionate appointments and also made a provision for grant of assistance to the tune of Rs.2.50 lakh in case the family of the deceased Government employee opts for the same or there is no vacancy to be offered to the dependents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his claim to the grant of assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that once the petitioner had rejected the officer of financial assistance, she cannot now claim the same. In my opinion, the rejection referred to was a conditional rejection in so much as the petitioner was re-iterating her demand for compassionate appointment. This cannot be construed as an unequivocal rejection of an offer. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the relief now sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner is granted. The respondents are directed to accept option of the petitioner for assistance as per 2003 policy. The necessary benefits be released to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 08, 2009. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 888 of 2009 ::3::