BABITA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.02.2016 (Annexure P-10) vide which the claim of the petitioner for monthly assistance in lieu of ex-gratia scheme dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure P-3) has been rejected. The prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus has also been made for directing the respondents to grant monthly financial assistance in lieu of ex-gratia scheme dated 01.08.2006.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that Ishwar Singh, husband of the petitioner, who was working as Conductor in Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon Depot under the Haryana State Transport Department, died in harness on 19.10.2005. The petitioner being her widow had applied for compassionate appointment on 13.03.2006. It is stated that in response to the said letter, she was informed vide letter dated 26.07.2007 (Annexure P-1) that now new policy dated 01.08.2006 has come into force and earlier policy of 2003 has been abolished. Therefore, she cannot be granted appointment on compassionate grounds. She was further informed that since her husband had expired on 19.10.2005, therefore, policy of 2003 will be applicable and she will be entitled to either a lump sum amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs or avail benefit of monthly financial assistance. She was directed to send the option within seven days. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her option for monthly financial assistance under ex-gratia scheme vide letter dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure P-2). She has specifically stated that she does not opt for lump sum amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs. It comes out thereafter vide order dated 27.01.2016 (Annexure P-10), the prayer of the petitioner for grant of monthly assistance under the policy of 2006 has been declined.

(3.) In the written statement, respondents have taken the stand that at the time of the death of the husband of the petitioner, Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2003 were applicable. The P.P.O No. 36536/F//HR was also issued on 205.2006 and the petitioner has been availing the benefit of family pension. It is further stated that policy of 2006 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is in fact entitled to lump sum amount of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs. Reliance has also been placed on the instructions dated 16.01.2009 (Annexure R-1) wherein it has been clarified that where PPO/GPO has been issued in case of death occurred prior to 01.08.2006, the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 cannot be made applicable.