AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court, praying for quashing of impugned orders/letter dated 24.01.2012 (Annexure P -8), dated 10.02.2012 (Annexure P -9) and dated 08.11.2012 (Annexure P -10), respectively vide which respondent No.3 has sought to make recovery of an amount of Rs.11,84,402/ - from the pension of the petitioner.
(2.) IT is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner, who was working as a Head Constable, died in a motor vehicle accident while performing his official duties on 26.07.2006. The petitioner was granted the financial assistance as per Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependent of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short, "the 2006 Rules"). However, vide impugned orders, it has been asserted that she would only be entitled to grant of lump -sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ - and the excess amount paid to the petitioner, as per 2006 Rules, is being sought to be recovered. This, the counsel contends, is not sustainable in the light of the judgement passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.20405 of 2010 (Saroj Versus Special Secretary, Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana and another), on 17.05.2012, where similar matter has been considered and decided, holding therein that wherever the cases for grant of benefit under the statutory rules were pending consideration and the subsequent rules have come into effect, the same shall be governed by the subsequent rules, especially in view of Rules 6 and 8 of the 2006 Rules. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was only entitled to grant of an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ - lacs as ex -gratia payment as on the date of death of husband of the petitioner, i.e., 26.07.2006, Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependent of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 were in existence. He further contends that the 2006 Rules would not be applicable as the said Rules have come into effect from 01.08.2006, which is a date subsequent to the death of the husband of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned orders are in accordance with law.
(3.) HAVING considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner is covered in her favour by the judgement passed by this Court in Saroj's case (supra), where it has been held as follows: - "The first objection which has been taken by the respondents is that the 2006 Rules would not be applicable to the claim of the petitioner as her husband had died on 10.12.2005 whereas the 2006 Rules came into force with effect from 01.08.2006. This assertion is based on the Full Bench judgment in 'Krishna Kumari's case (supra) laying down the principle that the statutory rules/instructions prevalent on the date of the death of the deceased employee shall be applicable cannot be disputed. But the Full Bench has not considered Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules and therefore, this judgment cannot be said to be applicable to the case in hand where there is specific statutory rules providing for the applicability of the 2006 Rules to all pending claims under the 2003 and 2005 Rules. The Full Bench primarily dealt with the situation wherein employee who had earlier opted for the benefit under the statutory rules prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee had not been granted the benefit of those rules in the light of the subsequent rules coming into force which were not more beneficial than the rules in force at the time of death of the deceased employee. It is in this context that the Full Bench had held that the rules prevalent at the time of death of the employee would be applicable. Thus, the claim of the petitioner under the 2006 Rules will not be affected by the judgment of the Full Bench referred to above. Rules 6 and 8 of 2006 Rules read as follows : - "6. All pending cases of ex -gratia assistance shall be covered under the new rules. The calculation of the period and payment shall be made to such cases from the date of notification of these rules. However, the families will have the option to opt for the lump sum ex -gratia grant provided in the Rules 2003 or 2005, as the case may be, in lieu of the monthly financial assistance provided under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. 7. xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx 8. The Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005, which are in force immediately before the commencement of these rules are hereby repealed; Provided that families will have the option to opt for the lump sum ex -gratia grant provided in the rules 2003 or 2005, as the case may be, in lieu of the monthly financial assistance provided under these rules: - Provided further that in all pending cases where the family exercises the option to receive the financial assistance under these rules, the calculation of the period and payment shall be made from the date of notification of these rules." 4. It is by now a settled and recognized Rule of Interpretation that every part of the statute must be interpreted keeping in the view the context in which it appears and the purpose of legislation. In Reserve Bank of India Versus Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and others, 1987(1) SCC 424, the Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted the importance of Rule of contextual interpretation in para -33 at page 450 held as follows : - "33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute -maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place." ;