- (1.) The husband of the petitioner was appointed as Conductor by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat, vide order dated 17.5.1995 on contractual basis. His services were regularised on 16.5.1997. A copy of the order of appointment and a copy of the order of regularisation have been placed on record as Annexures P-1 and P-2. On 14.4.1999, when he was on duty and travelling in the bus of the respondent Roadways, some dacoits, who were also travelling in the bus, threatened the passengers to hand over their valuable, cash and ornaments to them. The husband of the petitioner resisted the onslaught unleashed by the dacoits and challenged the dacoits when they started robbing the passengers. As a consequence he was shot dead by the robbers. The recommendations which were made by the General Manager in his letter dated 29.6.1999 (P-3), certifying the aforementioned facts and recommending the case of the petitioner for appointment as a Clerk, deserve pointed attention and the same reads as under :- "It is also clarified that a widow cannot be appointed against the post of clerk under the Govt. instructions but Late Sh. Rakesh Kumar conduct No. 177 laid his life on 14.4.1999. When the robbers begin robbing the passengers, then he challenged them and resultantly the robbers shot him. In this way Late Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Conductor No. 177 had not bothered about his life and scuffled with them and laid his life in that scuffling. Thus, keeping in view the above situation, you are hereby request (requested ?) to give appointment to Smt. Santosh Kumari in any of the department of Haryana Government by giving relaxation in the rules at the earliest possible."
(2.) The respondents, however, declined the request made by the petitioner even for grant of ex gratia financial assistance of Rs. 2,50,000/- vide order dated 14.6.2004 passed by General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat and the same reads as under :- "In this connection, you are informed that regular service of your husband Sh. Rakesh Kumar was less than three years, so under rules you cannot be given Rs. 2.5 lac as financial assistance." The respondents have also declined her request for appointment under the ex gratia scheme on 10.9.2003 (P-5) and the order is as under : "In reference to the subject cited above, you are informed that State Government has framed new Rules of ex gratia scheme on 31.3.2003. Under these rules, it is stipulated that all the pending cases are to be decided under these rules. Under the new rules, the waiting list shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of the death of the employee. If the dependent of the deceased is not appointed within 3 years according to the waiting list, then the validity of the list shall lapse after three years. Your name is in the waiting list and three years has lapsed. Thus your name from the waiting list has been struck off automatically. Under the new rules, if the dependent has not offered the job because of non-availability of the post, then financial assistance of Rs. 2.5 lacs is to be paid to the dependant. In this regard you submit your option as post cannot be offered to you because non-availability of the post. Thus if, you are willing to take Rs. 2.5 lacs, then send your option within one month so that financial assistance may be released.
(3.) In the written statement filed by the respondents the stand taken is that the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner was less than three years which dis-entitles her to claim compassionate appointment by virtue of Rule 3(d) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Employees Rules, 2003 (for brevity 'the 2003 Rules'). It is, however, admitted that husband of the petitioner. It is appropriate to mention that the husband of the petitioner was appointed on 17.5.1995 on contract basis and his services were regularised vide order dated 25.4.1998 w.e.f. 16.5.1997 when he had completed two years of service. A copy of the order has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. It is also admitted in para 6 of the written statement that the General Manager has recommended the case of the petitioner under the 2003 Rules by relaxation of any rules, if necessary or in the alternative her case was recommended for granting her ex gratia financial assistance. Referring to Rule 8 of 2003 Rules, the respondents have asserted that no relaxation in the case of the petitioner would be permissible. The further stand taken is that the waiting list was valid for a period of three years as is revealed after reading the order dated 10.9.2003 (Annexure P-5).;