CWP No. 1974 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1974 of 2004 Date of Decision: May 14, 2009 Sunil Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Sansar Kundu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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 father of the petitioner, after being discharged from the Army in low medical category, was appointed as Security Attendant/Guard on daily wages by respondent No.2 and was posted at Bus Stand, Safidon where he worked without any break from May, 1990 till July, 1997. He was regularised in service on 31.1.1996. Thereafter he died. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment but he could not get the same due to non-availability of any post within three years of his father's death. In terms of 2003 policy the petitioner was earlier offered financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs but the same was later denied on the ground that his CWP No. 1974 of 2004 2 father had not completed three years' regular service required for claiming compassionate appointment or compensation under the ex gratia scheme. As regards the stand of the respondents that the father of the petitioner should have had 3 years regular service, the same is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Kamlesh vs State of Haryana, 2006(4) SCT 658, wherein it was held as follows :- “If Rule 3(d)(ii) of the Rules is read ejusdem generis as suggested by the learned State counsel rather than interpreting both the clauses independently of each other then the basic object of the rules of ameliorating the sufferings of dependents of deceased Government employee would stand defeated. Such is not the intention of the rule making authority. It is trite to observe that socio-economic legislation is required to be interpreted by keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by such legislation. Moreover, Rule 3(d)(ii) has to be read down by adding words regular service. The plain meaning of the Rule is that an employee should have served the Government for at least for three years which the husband of the petitioner has done. It is also pertinent to notice that any ad hoc service followed by regularization is to qualify for pension as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) PLR 223. Therefore, we regret our inability to agree with the learned State counsel and reject the interpretation preferred by the respondents in CWP No. 1974 of 2004 3 the impugned orders dated 7.6.2006 (Annexure P-3) and 18.8.2005 (Annexure P-5).” In the present case, as the father of the petitioner died after regularization of service and after completing three years' service, the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner can not be justified. In the circumstances the action of the respondents in not releasing to the petitioner the compensation of Rs. 2.50 lacs offered by them by letter Annexure P-7 cannot be upheld. Consequently the respondents are directed to release the amount of Rs. 2.50 lacs to the petitioner in terms of the letter Annexure P-7 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the same is not granted within the stipulated period the petitioner shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of accrual till actual payment. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 14 , 2009 sunita