RITU BAHRI,J. - (1.) The petitioner is seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus seeking direction to the respondents to release the monthly financial assistance under ''the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short 'Rules 2006') ''
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor on 13.03.2013 through regular process conducted by Staff Selection Board (P -1). The husband of the petitioner was given regular pay scale vide instruction dated 25.06.2014 (P -2). Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 14.11.2014 in a road side accident, while he was in service (P -3). Petitioner submitted his application regarding granting of benefit under Rules 2006 (P -4) but till date no action has been taken and the petitioner came to know that the case of the petitioner is not being considered as husband of the petitioner had not completed one year of service.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in a case of Usha Rani and others v. State of Haryana and others, passed in CWP No. 10697 of 2013, decided on 07.10.2014 whereby this Court while dealing with a case of a driver who was appointed on 10.02.2012 and died on 30.09.2012 and his legal heirs were denied the benefit of Rules 2006 on the ground that he had not completed one year of service. This Court allowed the writ petition by referring to the below mentioned judgments: - " while referring to a judgment passed by this Court in a case of Kelo Devi v. State of Haryana and others, passed in CWP No. 5593 of 2011, decided on 07.02.2013 has held as under: - The question, as to whether an employee, who has rendered less than one year service is entitled to the benefits under the Rules, has been considered by this Court in Neeraj Yadav' s case (supra), where the deceased had joined as Inspector with the police on 7.10.2008 after medical examination and died on 23.3.2009. Despite the service being merely of five months, the family was held entitled to the benefits under the Rules. While dealing with the issue, this Court relied upon earlier judgments of this Court in Smt. Savitri Devi v. The State of Haryana and others 1996 (2) RSJ 854, Sharmila Devi v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited 2002 (4) SCT 178 and CWP No. 3515 of 2009 Mahender Kaur v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 5.10.2009. Hence, the petitioners could not be denied benefits under the Rules on the ground that the deceased employee had not served for minimum one year. In Kelo Devi's case (supra), the petitioner therein was declined ex -gratia assistance under the Rules on the ground that her husband, who was serving as a driver, was a contractual employee. He joined served as driver after due medical examination on 26.6.2008, however, he expired on 5.9.2010. This Court opined that the petitioner therein would be entitled to the benefits available under the Rules as the service rendered by her late husband was treated to be temporary service. In Mohinder Singh's case (supra), the issue was raised by the drivers/ conductors recruited in Haryana Roadways, regarding the salary being paid to them. In terms of the Rules for first three years in service, the drivers were to be paid fixed salary of Rs. 10,000/ - per month and only thereafter they were entitled to regular pay scales. This Court opined that payment of consolidated salary was impermissible and the rules to that extent were declared unconstitutional. The petitioners therein were held entitled to minimum of the pay scale from the date of their initial appointments. Meaning thereby, the method adopted by the State to recruit the drivers stating that initially they were on contract basis was deprecated by this Court. '' ;