- (1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed on 29.2.2008 withdrawing the benefit granted under the notification issued by the Haryana Government on 1.8.2006 under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. It was a case of the petitioner's husband dying in harness and a claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that she did not have necessary educational qualification for appointment. However, the respondents were reported to have kept the papers pending for consideration for financial assistance. Even before any assistance was rendered the 2006 notification had been issued. The scheme provided under clause 5 financial assistance for a period of 15 years from the date of death of an employee to a sum equal to the pay and other allowances that was last drawn by the deceased employee, if the deceased had not attained the age of 35 years; for a period of 12 years if the employee had attained the age of 35 years but had not attained the age of 48 years; and for a period of 7 years if the deceased had attained the age of 48 years. In terms of clause 5 the benefit was already granted to the petitioner. However, the instructions appear to have been issued later on 19.7.2007 that 2006 rules would be applicable only to persons who died after 1.8.2006 and for persons who had died earlier, the lump-sum payment as provided for the compassionate scheme rules of 2003 or 2005 alone was to be considered and paid. On this basis the order passed already providing for a monthly payment was withdrawn and lump-sum grant of '2.5 lacs was offered to be given and also deposited in the account directly. The petitioner would not want the lump-sum assistance and says that under the 2006 rules themselves, there was an option under clause 6 which made possible to obtain assistance in the manner provided under 2006 rules or take a lump-sum grant either under 2003 rules or 2005 rules as the case may be. If the rules are provided for such an option and the petitioner had actually exercised the option to receive the monthly payment on the basis of the last pay drawn, the instructions cannot over ride such a rule and direct but gives its applicability to be effective to persons who had died subsequently to 1.8.2006. Counsel for the respondent is fair to state that even the instructions dated 19.7.2007 were quashed by this Court. I do not have the details of the judgment but suffice it to hold that such an instruction cannot be issued against the express provisions under 2006 rules allowing for its applicability to all pending cases relating to compassionate assistance. The impugned order is quashed.
(2.) The petitioner is entitled to the presumption of the benefit under 2006 rules monthly viz., of payment of salary. Any arrears of salary till date shall be released within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is stated by the counsel that '2.5 lacs has now been adjusted against the arrears of salary and the balance of amount has been deposited. The respondent shall make a fresh calculation and adjust the balance of amount deposited by them against the arrears that are still payable. If there is no amount payable the first payment will commence from the day when the entire monthly salary and allowances are adjusted against the sum of '2.5 lacs. With these observations the writ petition is allowed.;