K. KANNAN - (1.) THE petitioner challenges the orders passed on 12.5.2008 and 25.3.2010, Annexures P-7 and P-6 respectively, denying to the petitioner the claim for compassionate assistance on the ground that the petitioner was a legal representative of a deceased employee who had not been made permanent.
(2.) THE petitioner's grievance is that her husband had already been employed with the HSMITC which is a State Incorporation and after its closure, in terms of the policy of the State which was incorporated by the UHBVN, the petitioner's husband had been given appointment. THE appointment order had been issued terming him as a temporary employee in the post of a Meter Reader and during the tenure of his service, he died in harness. THE petitioner's claim was made as a legal representative on the basis of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short 'the Rules'), adopted by the UHBVN. In response to the petitioner's claim, the contention of the counsel appearing for the UHBVN is that the petitioner's husband was not a permanent employee and since he was holding a temporary post and his services could have been terminated without any notice under the terms of appointment, the petitioner cannot have the benefit of compassionate assistance.
(3.) IT is not denied before me that the Rules have been adopted by the UHBVN as well. Reference to 'Government Employees' must, therefore, be taken as a reference to 'the employees' of the UHBVN.;