LPA No.1696 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1696 of 2011 Date of Decision: 15.9.2011 State of Haryana and others ....Petitioners Versus Renu Bala .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Vinod S Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G, Haryana for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH, J By way of present Letter Patent Appeal, State of Haryana and its officers have challenged the judgment dated 9.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge vide which CWP No.8291 of 2008 filed by the writ petitioner-Renu Bala (respondent herein) has been allowed while issuing the following directions: “1. To release further ex-gratia amount on account of death of the parents of the petitioner, both of them being govt employees. 2. The amount of ex-gratia already paid and to be paid to the petitioner be re-calculated equal to 10 months emoluments of the deceased Govt employees at the time of their death and if, the amount of ex-gratia on such calculation is more than Rs.10,000/- the balance amount on account of death of one of the Govt employee and the total ex-gratia on account of the death of the other Govt LPA No.1696 of 2011 #2# employee be paid to the petitioner within two months. 3. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appoint as an orphan be considered within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.” Detailed facts of the case have already been enumerated by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment dated 9.8.2010 and bare minimum factual back ground giving rise to the matter in controversy is as under: Both mother as well as father (who were working as J.B.T Teachers in the Haryana Education Department) of the writ petitioner, died in an accident on 25.9.1988, when she was only one and half years old child as her date of birth is 9.4.1986 and thus, she became major on 9.4.2004. Petitioner completed her graduation from Punjabi University, Patiala on 21.6.2007. Learned counsel for the appellants-State submits that the learned Single Judge has wrongly granted the benefit of Ex-gratia amount to be re-calculated by giving the benefit of Government Instructions dated 26.4.1988 (P.7) and he has further argued that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of compassionate appointment in view of 2003 Rules as her parents died while in service on 25.9.1988. Undisputedly, the petitioner was brought up by her grand- father as no one was left in the family and the writ petitioner became an orphan. Appellants-State of Haryana neither released the ex-gratia LPA No.1696 of 2011 #3# amount nor GPF in favour of the writ petitioner and thus she submitted a representation dated 15.7.2004 followed by another representation dated 20.8.2006. Writ petitioner also applied for compassionate appointment vide her request dated 12.9.2007 being an orphan in view of Rule 3 (k) and Rule 18 of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (for short “2003 Rules”), which were notified by the Government in its gazette on 28.2.2003. So far as the direction Nos.1 & 2 issued by the learned Single Judge for payment of ex-gratia amount is concerned, the same is based on the Government Instructions dated 26.4.1988 (P.7), which clearly speaks that “the matter regarding payment of ex-gratia amount to the bereaved family member of the deceased government employees as per emoluments under the revised pay scales, which had come into force with effect from 1.1.986 was under consideration of the Government. After careful consideration, Government has decided that the ex-gratia amount to the bereaved family member of the Government employees who died after 01.01.1986 may be paid equal to 10 months emoluments as admissible under the revised pay scales subject to the conditions that the minimum and maximum amount admissible shall remain Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25000/- respectively.” Thus, the directions are perfectly justified in view of the Government Instructions dated 6.4.1988 and the same have rightly been applied by the learned Single Judge. LPA No.1696 of 2011 #4# With regard to the direction No.3 is concerned, the same is based on 2003 Rules and the object of these Rules is defined in Rule 2, which reads as under: “Object of rules 2 : The object of the rules is to assist the family of a deceased employee in tiding over the emergency situation, resulting from the loss of the bread-earner by giving either of the following options: (i) 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 “harness”. (ii) Ex-Gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family of the deceased over and above all other benefits like ex-gratia grant due to his family to be paid @ 2.5 lacs. In cases where the family of the deceased does not opt for ex- gratia employement.” Further Rule 3(k) of 2003 Rules defines the word “Orphan”, which reads as under: “3 (k) “Orphan” means a child who has previously lost one parent and has become an orphan upon the demise of the Government employee.” Rule 18 of 2003 Rules postulates about the relaxation of any provisions, which is reproduced below: “Relaxation 18: There shall be no relaxation of any provision of these rules. However as a special case, these rules shall be relaxed only in the cases of children who have become orphans upon the demise of the government employee. The claim of appointment of such orphans shall remain alive till one child has attained majority/minimum eligible age for entry into Government service.” LPA No.1696 of 2011 #5# The cumulative effect of aforesaid Rules leaves no manner of doubt that the writ petitioner being an orphan is entitled to get the benefit of consideration of her case for compassionate appointment under 2003 Rules and the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly passed the impugned judgment dated 9.8.2010. In such circumstances, both the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants are devoid of any merit and liable to be rejected. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment dated 9.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference under Clause X of the Letters Patent. Even otherwise, no ground for condonation of 341 days delay in filing the LPA is made out. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE September 15, 2011 manoj