Chhanno Devi vs State of Haryana and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—On death of her husband, the Petitioner through the present writ petition not only seeks ex-gratia financial assistance but has also prayed for grant of pensioner benefits by counting the full service rendered by her late husband.

The husband of the Petitioner was appointed as part-time Sweeper in Government Primary School, Pohkarwas, District Bhiwani on 2.11.1986. He died in harness on 10.6.2005. Thus, he had served for 19 years, 6 months and 8 days, but has not been granted any pensioner benefits. The Petitioner would also complain that she would be entitled to compassionate assistance of Rs. 5.00 lacs under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (for short "2005 Rules"). The Petitioner had accordingly represented, but her claim was declined through an order dated 30.3.2007. The Petitioner has, thus, filed the present writ petition to challenge the said order.

The Respondents, however, would contest the right of the Petitioner to claim pensioner benefits as well as the ex-gratia compassionate assistance. It is not in dispute that late husband of the Petitioner was appointed as a part-time Sweeper on 2.11.1986. It is stated that in compliance of the regularization policy, the name of the husband of the Petitioner was sponsored by the Principal for regularization of his services and accordingly his services were regularized on 2.5.2005. Soon thereafter, he expired on 10.6.2005. Obviously, the Respondents would plead that husband of the Petitioner hardly had any regular service and so the Petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit.

Reference is made to Rule 3(d) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased government Employees Rules framed in 2003 (for short, "2003 Rules"), where the word "Deceased Govt. Employee" is defined. As per this rule, deceased government employee means who is appointed on a regular basis and not working on daily wages, casual, apprentice, work charge, ad hoc, contractual or re-employed and who has served the Government for at least three years and had not crossed the age of 55 years. As per the Respondents, late husband of the Petitioner did not have three years regular service and so he would not be entitled to ex-gratia compassionate assistance. Accordingly, the Respondents would pray that the Petitioner is not entitled to any benefits.

Taking up the issue of compassionate assistance first, reference may be made to Rule 3(d) of the 2003 Rules, which defines deceased government employee and is as under:

Deceased Govt. Employee means a Govt. employee:

(i) Appointed on regular basis and not working on daily wages, casual, apprentice, work charged, adhoc, contractual or re-employment basis.

(ii) Who has served the Govt. for at least 3 years.

(iii) Who should not have crossed the age of 455 years.

On the basis of this rule, it is urged that employee has not only to be a regular government employee for grant of compassionate assistance but he has to have three years regular service as well. To my mind, this interpretation would mean that the requirement of regular service is being read into second part of the definition, which apparently are independent of each other. Rule 3(d) (i) of the Rules provides that appointment of the deceased government employee has to be on a regular basis and then the rule separately provides that he must have had served for three years. Three years service apparently is not related to this service being regular. In fact, the same very issue arose before this Court in Kamlesh v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2007(1) RSJ 215. Division Bench of this Court has directly answered this question. Later a Single Bench of this Court again considered the identical Civil Writ Petition No. 4980 of 2010: 4: issue while deciding CWP No. 928 of 2008 (Smt. Anita Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.), decided on 7.9.2009. While interpreting Rule 3(d)(1) of 2003 Rules, it is observed that this rule makes a provision for at least three years service and it does not qualify that this service has to be regular service. In that case also, an attempt was made by State counsel to read Rule 3(d)(i) and (ii) together, which plea was negated with following observations in the case of Kamlesh (supra):

If Rule 3(d)(ii) of the Rules is read ejusdem generic as suggested by the learned State counsel rather than interpreting both the clauses independently of each other then the basic object of the rules of ameliorating the sufferings of dependents of deceased Government employee would stand defeated. Such is not the intention of the rule making authority. It is trite to observe that socio-economic legislation is required to be interpreted by keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by such legislation. Moreover, Rule 3(d)(ii) has to be read down by adding words regular service. The plain meaning of the Rule is that an employee should have served the Government for at least for three years which the husband of the Petitioner has done. It is also pertinent to notice that any adhoc service followed by regularization is to qualify for pension as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) PLR 23. Therefore, we regret our inability to agree with the learned State counsel and reject the interpretation preferred by the Respondents in the impugned orders dated 7.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) and 18.8.2005 (Annexure P-5).

This position was again reiterated in the case of Smt. Anita Devi (supra) in the following manner:

Still, it is required to be seen whether the rule position would require three years regular service or it is only a requirement of three years service at least. No doubt, first part of the Rule does talk of appointment being on regular basis and not working on daily wages etc., but that in my view would only be in regard to the nature of the employment which the Deceased Government employee was having. If a person dies when he is working on daily wages or a casual, work charged or adhoc basis, he may not be covered by the definition of Deceased Government Employee. However, once the service of the employee are regularized, then second condition is to be seen whether he at least has three years service with the Government. The condition of this service being regular apparently cannot be read into second clause.

These judgments were then followed while deciding Regular Second Appeal No. 3210 of 2009 (State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhim Singh), on 25.1.2010. Thus, it would be fair to hold that the requirement for grant of compassionate assistance would be of a service of three years and it necessarily need not be a regular service, but employee has to be a regular employee. The Petitioner has, thus, made out a case for grant of compassionate assistance and the order rejecting her claim passed on 30.3.2007 (Annexure P-2) cannot be sustained and is set-aside.

Though the Petitioner has prayed for grant of lump-sum compassionate assistance under 2005 Rules, but in view of amendment introduced in the rules in the year 2006, the Petitioner may be entitled to claim compassionate assistance under 2006 Rules. In terms of para 6 of 2006 Rules, the Petitioner can either opt for lump-sum assistance under 2005 Rules or monthly assistance as allowed under 2006 Rules. Since the Petitioner has claimed lump-sum assistance under 2005 Rules, it cannot be assumed that she has opted for grant of assistance under these Rules and, thus, she is held entitled to compassionate assistance of Rs. 5.00 lacs under the said Rules.

The Petitioner is also given liberty to file a representation for counting the entire service rendered by her late husband for grant of service benefits. The late husband of the Petitioner concededly had served for more than 19 years when he died. As per various pronouncements, once his services were regularized, the Petitioner may be entitled to ask for counting the entire service, though not on regular basis for grant of various benefits, including gratuity, pension and family pension. Let the Petitioner make a representation in this regard and the same be considered in accordance with law.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.