CWP No.14538 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 29.03.2010 Kiran ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. The husband of the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 01.01.2009. Unfortunately, he died on 28.02.2009 while in service. The petitioner applied for monthly financial assistance and ex-gratia grant vide her application dated 22.04.2009 (Annexure P-4). The request of the petitioner, however, has been rejected by the District Education Officer, Rewari, vide his communication dated 10.07.2009 (Annexure P-5), allegedly not covered under the policy dated 01.08.2006. As a matter of fact, no valid reason has been recorded in the impugned order. In the reply also, it is stated that the financial assistance is to be granted on the basis of the eligibility for family pension. The deceased husband of the petitioner had died within one year from the date of joining of service and, thus, the petitioner is not entitled for pension. Hence, the financial assistance cannot be granted to the petitioner. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment reported as Smt.Savitri Devi Vs. The State of Haryana and others, 1996 (2) RSJ, 854 and a judgment of this Court CWP No.14538 of 2009 2 passed in CWP No.3515 of 2009 (Mahender Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 05.10.2009. In Savitri Devi's case (supra), the family of the deceased government servant who had put in less than one year service before his death, has been held to be entitled to family pension and in the later case of Mahender Kaur, the legal heirs of the deceased employee have been held to be entitled to the financial assistance under the government policy under the ex-gratia rules. The relevant observation are as follows:- “Following the ratio laid down in the above-noted case, it is held that the petitioner would be entitled to the grant of family pension even when her husband had not completed one year continuous service as prior to his joining, the husband of the petitioner had appeared for medical examination and had been offered appointment only on having been found fit. Once the petitioner is held entitled to grant of family pension, she would be eligible for grant of compassionate financial assistance in terms of 2006 Rules as she would be eligible under Rule 3, which reads as under:- “ Eligibility-3. The eligibility to receive financial assistance these rules shall be as per the provision in pension/family pension scheme, 1964.” The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Direction is issued to the respondent-State to grant CWP No.14538 of 2009 3 compassionate financial assistance to the petitioner under 2006 Rules. Needless to mention that the petitioner would also be entitled to the family pension though in terms of 2006 Rules.” In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant ex-gratia financial assistance to the petitioner in accordance with 2006 rules. 29.03.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO