- (1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing letters dated 21.9.2007 and 14.1.2008 (P-6 and P-7) respectively. According to letter dated 21.9.2007, issued by respondent No. 1, an option has been sought from the petitioner for accepting financial assistance in accordance with the amendment dated 9.8.2007 (R-1), duly adopted by the respondents on 6.9.2007 (R-2). The amendment has been incorporated in the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees, Rules, 2006 (for brevity, 'the 2006 Rules'). The petitioner has been asked 'to accept the option and to file her affidavit to the effect that she did not re-marry and her family income from all sources is less than Rs. 6,000/- per month alongwith some other formalities. The letter dated 14.1.2008 is a reminder.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that one Shri Babu Ram, husband of the petitioner, was working as Assistant Lineman on regular basis with the respondents. Unfortunately, he died on 13.3.2005. His widow-the petitioner Raj Kumari applied for appointment on compassionate basis in May, 2005 under the ex-gratia Scheme by attaching all necessary documents. On the ground that the petitioner did not have minimum qualification for the post of Mali-cum- Chowkidar, she was denied compassionate appointment. However, she was offered to opt for cash financial assistance. The other option given to her was to seek facility of compassionate employment for any other eligible dependent who fulfilled the prescribed qualification. In pursuance to the later offer, Ms. Chetna Rani, daughter of the petitioner, submitted the necessary documents which were duly forwarded by the Executive Engineer. respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 4, vide letter date 11.5.2006 (P-3). Respondent No. 1, however, declined the request made by Ms. Chetna Rani by stating. that the State Government has amended the rules and the new rules of 2006 were notified on 3.8.2006, which are stated to have been duly adopted by the respondents on 7.9.2006. Respondent No. 1 pointed out that Ms. Chetna Rani would not be eligible of compassionate appointment although the family may apply for lump- sum ex-gratia grant as provided under the 2003 or 2005 Rules, which was to be in lieu of the monthly financial assistance provided under the 2006 Rules. Again respondent No. 3 was asked to obtain necessary option from the petitioner.
(3.) On 13.3.2007, respondent No. 1 accorded sanction to the case of the petitioner for financial assistance and granted to her financial assistance equal to the pay and other allowances last drawn by the deceased Babu Ram in the normal course for the period of 7 years from the date of his death or from the date of issuance of notification whichever was later, as per the provisions of Rule 5 of the 2006 Rules (P-5). Order dated 13.3.2007 (P-5), passed by respondent No. 1 reads thus : "In terms of provision contained under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the department of Deceased Govt. Employees Rules, 2006 adopted by the UHBVN vide circular memo No. Ch-86/UH/Pen/Loose dated 7.09.2006 sanction is hereby accorded for the grant of compassionate assistance by way of ex-gratia financial assistance on compassionate grounds in favour of Smt. Raj Kumari w/o Late Sh. Babu Ram/ALM who while (working under the administrative control of Xen (OP) Divn., UHBVN, Shahabad expired on 13.03.2005 and family of the deceased would continue to receive financial assistance equal to the pay & other allowances last drawn by the deceased employee in the normal course for a period of years from the date of death of the employee or from the date of issue of the notification which ever is later, as provided under Para 5 of the aforesaid rules. The family of the deceased shall be eligible for family pension as per the normal rules only after the period during which he/she receive the financial assistance as above is completed." Six months after passing of the order dated 13.3.2007 and on the basis of later amendment dated 9.8.2007 (R-1) made by the State of Haryana in the 2006 Rules, the,aforementioned benefit granted to the petitioner is sought to be withdrawn by the impugned letter dated 21.9.2007 (P-6). The aforementioned amendment has been duly adopted by respondent No. 1 on 6.9.2007 (R-2). According to the amendment, respondent No. 1 took the decision that in cases where pension, GPF and leave encashment had already been granted, the dependents of deceased employees were not to be entitled for pay and allowances last drawn by the decease except lump-sum cash financial assistance (which is Rs. 2.5 Lacs). The petitioner was asked to exercise her option which she did not accept. Respondent No. 1, however, sent reminder on 14.1.2008 (P- 7). The petitioner has filed a detailed representation against the aforementioned proposed action the respondents (P-8).;