Shanti Devi and another v. The State of Haryana and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.16 of 2018 (O&M) Reserved on : 08.01.2025 Date of Decision: 18.01.2025 Shanti Devi and another Versus The State of Haryana and others …Appellants …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Argued by:- Mr.Devinder Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ***** Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. CM No.516-LPA of 2018 This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants- appellants for seeking the permission to place the copies of the order dated 04.10.2013 and the information dated 17.08.2016, received under the RTI Act, on the record as Annexures A-11 and A-12 respectively and also the exemption from filing the certified/typed copies thereof. Heard. The CWP, out of which the present LPA has arisen, had been filed in the year 2017, meaning thereby that both the afore-said documents were already in existence at that time but throughout in this application, the applicants-appellants have not advanced any cogent reason for not annexing the same with the CWP. Moreover, they have also not come forward with any plausible explanation/justification to show as to how these documents would NEETU RANI 2025.01.20 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD LPA No.16 of 2018 -2- be relevant and essential for proper and just adjudication of the instant LPA. Resultantly, the present application stands dismissed. LPA No.16 of 2018 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment handed down by learned Single Judge on 31.08.2017, whereby CWP No.4808 of 2017, as filed by the appellants-writ petitioners (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the appellants’) for seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint appellant No.2 as Class-IV employee, on compassionate grounds and also to grant the financial aid to them (appellants) in pursuance of the current policy, has been dismissed by way of rejecting their afore- mentioned prayer for the appointment of appellant No.2 but while observing that in case, an application is moved by them for the release of the financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lac, the same would be so released within three months from the date of the receipt of such application, they have chosen to prefer the instant intra-Court appeal. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, culminating in the filing of the present appeal, are that the appellants filed the above-referred CWP and averred therein that Prem Chand, the husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2, had been working in the office of Assistant Soil Conservator, Sadhora and he had died on 15.03.2003 and the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (for short ‘the Rules of 2003’), as notified on 28.02.2003, were in force at that time. Initially, the case for the appointment of appellant No.1-wife, on compassionate grounds, had been forwarded to the Competent Authority but on account of her health condition, she made a request on 25.08.2003 for the appointment of her son, i.e appellant No.2. However, the respondents did not NEETU RANI 2025.01.20 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD LPA No.16 of 2018 -3- accede to her request, in view of the notification issued on 01.08.2006 qua implementation of the new Rules which provided that the dependent(s) of the deceased Government employee could opt either for monthly or for one time financial assistance. Then, the appellants filed CWP No.13552 of 2007 which was decided vide the judgment dated 22.08.2008 and in compliance thereof, respondent No.2 had passed the order dated 24.03.2009 (Annexure P-9) for sending the Demand Draft worth Rs.2.5 lac to appellant No.1 as the financial assistance, in terms of the Rules of 2003. The SLP, as filed by the respondents against the said judgment dated 22.08.2008, was dismissed on 28.01.2015.
Legal Reasoning
After hearing the counsel for the appellants, learned Single Judge has decided the afore-said CWP No. 4808 of 2017 vide the impugned judgment, as already indicated in the opening para of this judgment. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned State counsel for the respondents in the instant appeal and have also gone through the file/record carefully. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in view of the Rules of 2003, appellant No.2, the son of the above-named deceased employee, is entitled to be appointed as Class-IV employee on compassionate grounds but vide order Annexure P-9, the respondents have wrongly declined to do so and vide the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has also erred in rejecting the afore-described claim of the appellants and though he has extended the relief of financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2.5 lac to them (appellants) but has erroneously denied the grant of interest thereon, despite a long delay on the part of the respondents in the payment of the said amount
Decision
and therefore, the impugned judgment is not legally sustainable and hence, the same deserves to be set-aside. NEETU RANI 2025.01.20 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD LPA No.16 of 2018 -4- 5. Per-contra, learned State counsel for the respondents has argued that the claim of the appellants for the appointment of appellant No.2, as Class-IV employee, has rightly been declined by the Competent Authority vide order Annexure P-9 and by learned Single Judge as well and moreover, these were the appellants themselves, who had refused to accept the above- referred financial assistance, in spite of the same having been repeatedly offered to them and it being so, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is a matter of record that CWP No.13552 of 2007, as preferred by the appellants earlier, had been disposed of by this Court vide the judgment Annexure P-6 (Colly) with the direction to the respondents to consider their (appellants’) claim afresh in the light of the Instructions/Rules, applicable at the time of the death of afore-said Prem Chand and the SLP, moved by the respondents to lay challenge to the above-mentioned judgment, was dismissed by the Apex Court vide the order Annexure P-7. Undisputedly, the Rules of 2003 were in force at the time of the death of Prem Chand. Rule 4 of the afore-referred Rules reads as under:- “4(1) A dependent of the deceased/missing Government employee shall give in writing his/her preference of option, within 3 years from the date of death of the Government employee, for one of the following:- (a) 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 ‘service’ (b) ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family of the deceased, over and above all other NEETU RANI 2025.01.20 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD LPA No.16 of 2018 -5- benefits like ex-gratia grant due to his/her family, to be paid @ Rs.2.5 lacs in case of the family of the deceased not opting for ex-gratia employment. 2) Exercise of option shall be permitted only once and shall not be changed, once exercised. 5. A dependent of the deceased/missing Government employee shall make an application in Form ‘A’ or Form ‘B’ for ex-gratia appointment on compassionate grounds or ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance, as the case may be.” 7. Concededly, the appellants had opted for the appointment of appellant No.2 on compassionate grounds. Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2003 provides as under:- “6. (1) The Head of the concerned department where the deceased/missing person was employed is competent to give appointment/provide compassionate financial assistance to the completely dependent indigent member of the family of the deceased/missing Government employee. a) The Head of the Department shall prepare a list of such dependents which shall be valid for a period of 3 years and appointments will be given by the department strictly in accordance with the seniority so maintained. b) c) The validity of the list shall lapse after 3 years. The dependent of the deceased Government employee can exercise his preference with regard to option as contained in clause (b) of sub rule (1) of rule 4 of the these rules within a period of one month after the expiry of the validity of the list prepared by the department, if no post exist in the department for NEETU RANI 2025.01.20 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD LPA No.16 of 2018 -6- ex-gratia appointment.” 8. When both the above-quoted Rules are read in juxta-position, it emerges that the dependent(s) of the deceased Government employee may opt for any of the reliefs as envisaged under Rule 4 and the Head of the concerned Department is required to prepare a list of the dependents, opting for the relief of appointment on compassionate grounds and the same is to remain valid for a period of three (03) years and the appointments are to be given strictly in accordance with the seniority so maintained and in the eventuality of no post being available in the Department for ex-gratia/compassionate appointment, the dependent(s) can exercise the option for grant of the financial assistance, within a period of one month from the date of expiry of the period of validity of the afore-referred seniority list. It has categorically been mentioned in the order Annexure P-9 that vide the letter dated 17.08.2005, appellant No.1 had been informed that she stood at Sr. No.12 in the above-mentioned seniority list and there was no chance of any vacancy for the post of Class-IV employee accruing till 14.03.2006, i.e the expiry of the period of three (03) years, as the employees of the afore-said category were already in excess and she had further been asked to send the consent for accepting the financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lac. Thereafter, vide the letters dated 30.08.2006 and 31.01.2007, she had again been asked to send her option for the above-mentioned financial assistance but she had reiterated her request for the appointment of her son, i.e appellant No.2, on compassionate grounds and then, a Demand Draft worth the afore-referred amount had been sent to appellant No.1 but she refused to accept the same. 9. It is worth-while to mention here that the appellants have not been able to place any material on the file to show that the dependent of any NEETU RANI 2025.01.20 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD LPA No.16 of 2018 -7- deceased employee had been given appointment, on compassionate grounds, out of the turn and in violation of the above-mentioned seniority list or that any vacant post of Class-IV employee, for the purpose of compassionate/ ex-gratia appointment, was available during the period of the validity of the relevant seniority list. Even otherwise, these were the appellants themselves, who had refused to accept the financial assistance as provided under the Rules of 2003, despite the same having repeatedly been offered to them. In such circumstances, it becomes quite explicit that no delay can be attributed to the respondents in the payment of the financial assistance, so as to entitle the appellants to claim the interest on the afore-said amount. 10. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion and in view of the findings as recorded by learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that there is no cogent and valid reason/ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Resultantly, the appeal in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE JUDGE 18.01.2025 neetu. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No NEETU RANI 2025.01.20 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD