Mamta And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others

Jagmohan Bansal, J

The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 21.09.2021 whereby respondent has rejected their claim for compassionate appointment.

Ms. Shelika, Advocate has filed power of attorney of Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the case file.

The petitioner No.1 is second wife of Constable Inderjeet Singh who passed away in harness on 19.01.2016. He was survived by mother & two children from first marriage besides petitioner No.1 (second wife) and one child (petitioner No.2) from second marriage. Except petitioners, all the other members/claimants accepted lumpsum financial assistance. The petitioners were claiming compassionate appointment. The respondent did not extend benefit of compassionate appointment because other claimants received lumpsum financial assistance.

Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that children of first marriage have attained majority and they are no more entitled to family pension. Mother of the deceased-employee has passed away, thus, petitioner and her son (petitioner No.2) are surviving dependents of Constable Inderjeet Singh. The respondent should pay them full family pension.

Faced with this, learned State counsel submits that case of petitioners would be reconsidered and they would be granted full family pension if found eligible in accordance with rules.

The needful be done within two months from today.

Disposed of.

The petitioners are at liberty to avail remedies as permissible by law if their claim is rejected by respondent on one or another ground.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.