Civil Writ Petition No.21775 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2009 Usha Kaushik .....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. G.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who has lost her husband, is now before this court for release of compassionate assistance, being dependent, to which she is entitled to as per the rules. The husband of the petitioner was working as Agriculture Development Officer with the respondents. He expired on 17.11.2005 at the young age of 45-1/2 years. He left behind a widow without any source of income. Respondents were considerate enough to inform the petitioner through letter dated 21.9.2006 about Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependent of Deceased Civil Writ Petition No.21775 of 2008 : 2 : Government Employee Rules, 2006 (hereinafter called the “Rules”). Based on the provisions contained in the Rules, respondents offered for giving full monthly payment, equal to the pay and allowances that were last drawn by the deceased Government employee for a period of 12 years or till the date of employee would have retired from the Government service on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner accordingly made an application on 3.1.2007. The department, on 12.1.2007, sanctioned the monthly payment of monthly financial assistance for a period of 12 years or till the date of employee would have retired from the Government service. The assistance was to be granted w.e.f. 1.8.2006, which is the date on which the 2006 Rules were promulgated. The benefits, however, were not released. The petitioner thereafter had to make representation for release of this assistance. The pleadings and representation of the petitioner were of no avail and monthly financial assistance, even after being allowed, was not released. The petitioner ultimately filed Civil Writ Petition No.14424 of 2008, which was disposed of with direction to the respondents to release the benefits. If the benefits were not to be released, the respondents were to pass a speaking order. On 18.8.2008, respondent No.5 rejected the representation of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on a clarificatory letter issued by Chief Secretary, Haryana to the effect that the benefits of ex-gratia assistance in all pending cases shall be covered by the new rules, but it is further stated that all those cases where the death had occurred prior to 1.8.2006, the family pensioner cannot opt for new scheme of monthly financial assistance. The petitioner, thus, is Civil Writ Petition No.21775 of 2008 : 3 : before this court again to impugn this order. The respondents had rightly granted the ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the petitioner under 2006 Rules and action either to withdraw or not to pay the said assistance is misconceived. Rule 6 of 2006 Rules categorically provides that ex- gratia assistance shall be covered under the new rules. It is only that the families effected will have the option to opt for lump sum ex-gratia grant provided under Rules 2003 or 2005 in lieu of monthly financial assistance. In this case, the petitioner had sought monthly financial assistance on being apprised by the Rule position as contained in 2006 Rules. Thus, she did not opt for lump sum ex-gratia grant provided under Rules 2003 or 2005. Her claim had not been finalised when the new rules came into existence w.e.f. 1.8.2006. As per Rule 6, the pending cases are to be covered by the new Rules. Thus, 2006 Rules will clearly apply to the case of the petitioner. This aspect has already been considered by this court in Civil Writ Petition No.3653 of 2009 (Babita Rani Vs. State of Haryana and others), which was allowed on 2.7.2009. Even the aspect of the applicability of previous rules on the ground that death was prior to 1.8.2006 was considered by this court in Babita Rani's case (supra) and it is observed as under:- “In the absence of Rule 6, the respondents could have had some justification to say that these Rules would not apply to the cases where death had taken place prior to the coming into force of 2006 Rules but on the face of Rule 6, they certainly can not be permitted to make such a plea. Without doubt, the case of the petitioner was Civil Writ Petition No.21775 of 2008 : 4 : pending on 1.8.2006, when 2006 Rules came into operation, though the death of her husband was prior to this date. The petitioner has clearly averred in Para 5 of the petition that she had opted for grant of financial assistance in terms of 2006-Rules and these averments have been admitted by the respondents. Still, it is stated that as per the instructions of the Government, the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate financial assistance in terms of 2006-Rules. This stand of the respondent-Government is clearly in violation of the provisions of Rule 6 of 2006 Rules and, thus, is totally misconceived. The respondents could have had some justification to take this stance if the case of the petitioner had been finalized prior to 1.8.2006.” Even a Division Bench of this court in case of Raj Kumari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And others, 2008(4) SCT 411 has viewed that all pending cases of ex gratia are to be covered under 2006 Rules. This was also a case where the ex gratia payment having been allowed was withdrawn on the basis of a letter issued by the Financial Commissioner. The Division Bench of this court held that executive/administrative or clarification cannot amend the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Thus, the justification given by the respondents to withdraw the assistance after having provided the same to the petitioner is wholly unjustified, unwarranted and cannot be sustained. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to monthly financial assistance from the date of notification of 2006 Rules, i.e., 1.8.2006. The Civil Writ Petition No.21775 of 2008 : 5 : payment due to the petitioner on this ground be released within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date it was due to the date of payment,. The petitioner is held entitled to the cost of the petition which is assessed at Rs.10,000/-. September 01, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE