CWP No.21211 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.21211 of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.5.2009 Vinod ...Petitioner V E R S U S State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. R. A. Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) The father of the petitioner died while performing duty on 3.8.1991. The mother of the petitioner applied for ex-gratia appointment under ex-gratia scheme and her case remained under process upto 16.12.1997. On 16.12.1997, respondent No.3 wrote a letter to the mother of the petitioner that the Head Office has sought information that instead of this department, if the appicant wants to serve in any other department, then information be given. The mother of the petitioner replied that at this juncture, she is not in a position to join service being widow and illiterate. Thus, a post may be kept reserved till her son becomes major. After that no information regarding denial or acceptance of the reply was received by the mother of the petitioner. On 20.09.2005, mother of the petitioner applied for appointment of the petitioner on the ground that she had already given in CWP No.21211 of 2008 -2- writing to the department that when her son becomes major, he may be kept in service. Vide order dated 5.12.2007, her case was rejected on the ground that her case was filed being time barred. As matters stand, neither the petitioner was given a job nor the lump sum assistance, which has resulted in the filing of this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his claim to the grant of lump sum assistance under the 2003 policy. In my opinion, the ground taken to deny the benefits to the petitioner viz. that the case was time barred would not stand scrutiny of law. In Raj Rani v. State of Haryana reported as 2009(1) SCT 104 a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner deserves to be accepted for the simple reason that her claim all though has been pending with the respondent Department, which fact has been admitted by the respondents in their written statement for which a special reference can be made to the preliminary submissions as raised by them. Even, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, provide that all pending cases will be considered under the said Rules and as per the assertions made by the petitioner and the stand of the respondents, the claim of the petitioner was considered by the office of the Chief Secretary also which vide its communication dated 27.8.2002 while returning the CWP No.21211 of 2008 -3- cases of all Class III and IV employees to the Police Department had advised that the cases of dependents of deceased employees be considered for ex gratia appointment in the Police Department. It is also the admitted case of the respondents in the written statement that the name of the petitioner was included in the pending list of cases lying with the Police Headquarters as per the seniority. The case of the petitioner, thus, was finally decided and rejected by the office of the Director General of Police vide its communication dated 15.6.2006 (Annexure P-9) and that too on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the application within a period of three years from the death of the deceased. This reason, as assigned in the said letter, is totally contrary to the facts as the husband of the petitioner died on 18.2.1994 and the petitioner submitted her application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 5.4.1994 i.e. within two months from the death of her husband. The instructions, as applicable, at that point of time provided for compassionate appointment and therefore, the petitioner had applied for the same. It is during the pendency of the claim of the petitioner that the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 were promulgated and accordingly, her claim was required to CWP No.21211 of 2008 -4- be considered under the said Rules requiring consideration of all pending cases accordingly. The action of respondent No.2 also can not be sustained in view of the communication of the Chief Secretary dated 27.8.2002 which advised the Department to consider the case of the dependents of the deceased employees. It would no be out of way to mention here that on consideration of the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the 2003 Rules, her claim for grant of ex-gratia financial assistance of Rs.2.50 lacs was forwarded by respondent No.3 along with the written option of the petitioner to respondent No.2 in the year 2003. Therefore, the stand of the respondents cannot be sustained on this ground as well.” Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the lessor relief now sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner is granted. The respondents are directed to accept option of the petitioner for one time lump sum assistance. The necessary benefits be released to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 26, 2009 JUDGE ashish