CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1866 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 15 ,2010 Smt.Savitri Devi ..... 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. S. S. Duhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This is a case of unfortunate widow, fighting for compassionate appointment for her son or in the alternative praying for compassionate financial assistance in terms of the Scheme formulated by the Government on death of her husband. Like in most cases, the State continues to be insensitive to the cry of hapless widow that too by ignoring the rules position. One technical objection after another is raised to deny the claim of the petitioner, which does CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1866 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: not reflect well either on the State or its agent. Why have such Schemes to show compassion if these schemes are to be violated without any consideration for compassion. The facts noticed in brief would tell the tale of woes of this unfortunate widow. Rajinder Parshad, husband of the petitioner, who was working as a Head Constable died on 8.6.1998. For her survival, the petitioner prayed for appointment of her son, Vinod Kumar, on compassionate ground. Before this claim could be considered or mature, the son of the petitioner, namely, Vinod Kumar, unfortunately died on 25.7.1999. The petitioner then came forward to make a claim for her appointment on compassionate ground. It is sad and distressing to notice that the petitioner asked for appointment as a Class IV employee/Sewadar in the Police Department or in the Education/Health Department. A widow of soldier (Head Constable) asked for an appointment as Sewadar and even this did not find favour with State or its agents. The respondents had informed the petitioner that request for her appointment and in the alternative for appointing her second son, Parmod Kumar, was received. The respondents also asked the petitioner to send requisite documents. The second son of the petitioner was called to the office on 30.12.2005. After finding all the documents to be in order, the son of the petitioner was sent back. Finely, respondent No.4 decided to reject the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of non-availability of any Class IV post within three years from the date of death of her deceased husband. Can some one believe that there was no Class IV post available with the State for 3 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1866 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: years? The State would have made numerous appointments to Class IV posts and could be exposed if asked to furnish details. This communication was sent to the petitioner on 20.3.2006. The petitioner accordingly has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The stand of the respondents reflected in the reply would rather make it unfortunate reading. It is conceded that husband of the petitioner died on 8.6.1998 and he was working as Head Constable. It is also in the knowledge of the respondents that the elder son of the petitioner, Vinod Kumar, died on 27.7.1999, before his claim for appointment could be considered. It is also conceded that the petitioner had sought appointment as a Class IV employee/Sewadar. At the same time, it is stated that the petitioner had submitted an affidavit on 27.6.2003, claiming ex-gratia benefits according to Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “2003 Rules”). As per the respondents, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on 11.7.2003 due to non availability of any Class IV post within three years from the date of death of her husband. True copies of the noting sheets have been annexed with the reply. Admittedly, what is contained in the notings is not communicated to the petitioner. The respondents have themselves disclosed that the case of the petitioner for not providing Government service was again conveyed to Inspector General on 21.4.2006 and copy of the letter in this regard is annexed as Annexure R-2. It is stated that in the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1866 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: meantime, ex-gratia policy for providing compassionate assistance was formulated in the year 2006. It can be seen that the petitioner had subsequently made a request for financial assistance of `2.50 lacs under 2003 Rules and she withdrew her request for compassionate appointment for her second son, Parmod Kumar. It is accordingly prayed that the claim of the petitioner be rejected. Counsel for the petitioner today submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case she is allowed financial assistance of `2.50 lacs in terms of 2003 Rules. When the case came up for hearing on 7.7.2010, the State counsel was directed to have instructions as to how and why the petitioner can not be allowed compassionate assistance under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “2006 Rules”). State counsel would continue to advocate the stand of the State. The primary reliance of the respondents to deny compassionate assistance under 2006 Rules is an order, which was statedly passed on 11.7.2003, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of ex-gratia assistance. To substantiate that the claim of the petitioner was rejected in July 2003, reference is made to noting, copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-1. There is no material placed on record to show if the noting or the outcome thereof was ever communicated to the petitioner. In the absence of communication, it will not be possible to say that any rejection was conveyed or communicated to the petitioner. Notings on files, which is not communicated, can not possibly be termed as an order. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1866 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: When asked to explain as to how and under what circumstances, the case of the petitioner was again taken up for consideration and a communication issued to her on 21.2.2006, copy of which is Annexure R-2, Mr.Rathee has referred to a letter initiated by the petitioner in the year 2005. The said letter, though not placed on record, but is read over in the Court. The gist of this letter, in brief, is that the petitioner had conveyed that her request for grant of `2.50 lacs as compassionate assistance was on being misguided by some police employee, who had made her to sign certain documents. In this letter, the petitioner has given the background of the entire case and has expressed herself that no one had cared to attend to her grievances. The petitioner had made a prayer to consider the case for appointment of her second son, Parmod Kumar, on compassionate ground and instead of compassionate assistance, she had written that she would forego the claim of compassionate assistance. This communication was dealt with and rejection conveyed to her through Annexure R-2 on 21.2.2006. For the first time, it is disclosed in this communication that the case of the petitioner was considered in the year 2003 for ex-gratia scheme and was filed. The State counsel is directed to place the true translated copy of this communication on record, which he has done and the same is kept on record as Mark `A'. The manner in which the case of the petitioner has been dealt with is highly regrettable. The lady, who had lost her husband, is struggling for years together either to seek appointment for her son or alternatively to seek compassionate assistance. What is the use of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1866 OF 2010 :{ 6 }: framing the Schemes, if the means and ways are to be found to reject such claims. A reading of the communication (Mark `A'), which has now been placed on record, would show how desperate the petitioner was to get assistance or an appointment. She being illiterate has been misguided by some employee or the other and perhaps that is the reason she has waivered a bit during the course of her struggle to get her dues, while her case was in the process of consideration for compassionate assistance or appointment. Her desperation is quite apparent from the facts as are clear from record that she was even prepared to take the job of Class IV employee/Sewadar. Even that was not considered properly. Annexure R-1 would not show that the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Under 2003 Rules, the compassionate appointment is provided for in alternative to compassionate assistance. A perusal of Annexure R-1, which is a noting only, shows that case for appointment was found to have become invalid and accordingly the same was filed being time barred. Apparently, there is no decision taken, to reject the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate assistance. Even if the case for grant of compassionate appointment was not made out, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate assistance, being an alternative to appointment, certainly was required to be considered but was not considered at all. The case was again taken up for consideration on the basis of communication addressed by the petitioner in the year 2005 and still, the respondents refused to see reason and stuck to the decision taken in 2003. That was no decision in the eyes of law. Certainly, it can not be taken to be an order. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1866 OF 2010 :{ 7 }: It is, thus, seen that the case of the petitioner for compassionate assistance under 2003 Rules has not been properly considered in terms of the policy instructions. There is no reason forthcoming as to why the petitioner could not be granted assistance if she was not to be given compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the modified prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, as now pressed during the course of arguments for grant of `2.5 lacs as compassionate assistance, is clearly justified and deserve to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed and it is directed that a compassionate assistance of `2.5 lacs be released to the petitioner within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. Since the respondents have been totally insensitive to the need of the petitioner, who needed this compassionate assistance to tide over difficult time and have made her to struggle so hard to get her due entitled to her, the petitioner is held entitled to exemplary costs, which are assessed as `50,000/-. December 15,2010 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE