AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order/letter No.36040/Welfare Dated 13.07.2018 (Annexure P-11), passed by respondent No.4 with a further prayer to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the Ex-Gratia Scheme and to grant a lump-sum amount of compassionate Financial Assistance alongwith interest with all consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that brief sequence of events in chronological order relevant to the present case is as follows: – 04.02.1991:The father of the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in respondent-department on 01.10.1985. Father of the petitioner had expired on 04.02.1991 during service. 27.03.1991:The Respondent-State had formulated Ex-Gratia Policy dated 27.03.1991 (Annexure P-1), for appointment and financial assistance to be rendered to dependents of deceased employees.
It is submitted that the petitioner was born in the year 1988. As such, at the time of death of his father, he was only 02 years old. It is contended that after formulation of the above said 1991 Policy, mother of the petitioner had approached the respondent-department and applied for compassionate appointment and other benefits. However, she was informed by the respondent-department that whenever the petitioner attains majority, he would be given appointment. 08.05.1995 and 31.08.1995:In the meantime, State of Haryana had introduced two policies for employment to the dependents of the deceased government employees under Ex-Gratia Scheme dated 08.05.1995 and 31.08.1995 (Annexures P-12 and P-13, respectively). 28.02.2003 and 31.03.2003:Government of Haryana had also introduced two other policies dated 28.02.2003 and 31.03.2003 (Annexures P-14 and P-15, respectively) in which new scheme was introduced for grant of Rs.2.5 lacs to the family of the deceased where they have not opted for Ex-Gratia employment. 18.11.2005 and 30.11.2005:Subsequently vide other policies dated 18.11.2005 and 30.11.2005 (Annexures P-16 and P-17, respectively), provision of Ex-Gratia amount of Rs.2.5 lacs was further enhanced to Rs.5 lacs to be paid to the dependents of the deceased government employees. 6/12.11.2008:Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that however, neither the petitioner nor his mother have been considered under any of the above-said policies. Accordingly, when the petitioner attained the age of 17 years, mother of the petitioner had again approached the respondent-department vide representation dated 06.11.2008 (Annexure P-2) for Ex-gratia appointment of the petitioner. However, the said application was rejected by the respondent vide letter dated 12.11.2008 issued by respondent No.3 stating that as per the Policy of 2006, application for compassionate appointment has to be made within three years of death of the government employee. 18.02.2009 and 25.02.2009:The mother of the petitioner had again approached the respondent-department by way of representation dated 18.02.2009; which was forwarded by respondent No.4. However, again office of respondent No.3 vide order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure P-3 Collyy) returned the file by stating that the application should have been given within three years of death of father of the petitioner. 16.03.2011: Government of Haryana had issued a letter dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure P-18), where-under a one-time relaxation for applying under Ex-Gratia Scheme in old cases pertaining to before 01.08.2000, where no option had been exercised under relevant provision, was offered. 01.05.2018: It submitted that thereafter as nobody heard the genuine claim of the petitioner and his mother, then mother of the petitioner wrote a detailed representation dated 01.05.2018 to the office of respondent No.2 through Chief Minister Grievances Redress and Monitoring System (Annexures P--5 and P-6). 17.05.2018: In response thereto mother of the petitioner had received reply dated 17.05.2018 (Annexure P-8) from respondent No.3 mentioning that Government of Haryana has closed the Ex--Gratia Appointment Scheme. As such the petitioner is not entitled for the Ex-Gratia appointment. 13.07.2018: As mother of the petitioner was not satisfied with the reply of the respondent-department, the office of the C.M.Window again called for the inquiry in the matter; in which the office of respondent No.4 passed the impugned order dated 13.07.2018 (Annexure P-11) rejecting case of the petitioner on the ground that neither the petitioner nor his mother had applied for compassionate appointment within period of three years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the department has considered number of cases under the afore-said letter dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure P-18). However, request of the petitioner has not been considered at any stage.
It is submitted that as per information received by the petitioner under R.T.I, respondent-department has given appointment as well as financial assistance under various Ex-Gratia Schemes to dependents of deceased government employees from time to time. However, neither the petitioner nor his family have received anything from the respondents under any of the aforesaid Ex-Gratia Schemes.
Learned counsel further submits that mother of the petitioner is an illiterate lady and was not capable of doing job due to domestic problems. However, she had applied and requested numerous times for employment for the petitioner and/or for Ex-Gratia Financial assistance. Yet nothing has been granted to them.
Per contra, learned State counsel has controverted the submissions of the petitioner and pointed out that claim of the petitioner is highly belated. It is submitted that as per the Policy of 1991 (Annexure P-1), it was stipulated that an application for Ex-Gratia appointment is required to be given within three years after death of the government employee. Whereas admittedly in the case of the petitioner, application was first submitted by mother of the petitioner only in the year 2008 after death of the father of the petitioner on 27.03.1991 i.e after a delay of 17 years.
It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the mother of the petitioner had ever approached the respondent-department prior to 2008. Furthermore, it is the clear case of the respondents that mother of the petitioner had been contacted after death of her husband. However, she has refused to take Ex-Gratia employment, and she did not file any application under any Ex-Gratia Scheme. It is submitted that on examination of the pension record of the deceased, it was found that a note had been given in the record that wife of the deceased employee refused to apply for the Ex-Gratia Scheme. Therefore, present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this short ground itself.
It is pointed out that even under the Scheme of 16.03.2011 (Annexure P-18) a lenient view was taken, and a one-time option was granted to the persons such as the petitioner to apply for Ex-Gratia appointment. However, the petitioner had failed to avail of the benefit of even the said Scheme. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be satisfied if the present writ petition be disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider case of the petitioner in terms of policy dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure P-18) and grant one time relaxation.
Learned State counsel has submitted that he has no objection to the same.
No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail.
Perusal of the aforesaid facts reveals that father of the petitioner had died while in service on 04.02.1991. The petitioner was born in the year 1988. As such at the time of death of his father he was only two years old. As per the 1991 Policy Annexure P-1, application for compassionate appointment has to be made within a period of three years of death of the government employee. It is the case of the petitioner that at that time mother of the petitioner had applied for Ex-Gratia appointment, but she was told by the respondents that the petitioner would be given appointment only upon attaining the age of majority. However, the said assertion of the petitioner remains totally unsubstantiated. It is also a very vague assertion as the petitioner has failed to even give any date on which his mother had allegedly approached the respondent-department for compassionate appointment; or even whom she had approached. Whereas the respondents in their written statement have categorically stated that when mother of the petitioner had been contacted after the death of her husband-Rajinder Kumar, she had refused to take Ex-Gratia employment; and she did not file any application under Ex-Gratia Scheme. It has further been stated in their written statement that on examination of the pension record of the deceased – Rajinder Kumar, a note was found as per which wife of the deceased employee had refused to apply for Ex-Gratia Scheme. The petitioner has filed no replication to controvert the above said averments made in the written statement. As such, family of the deceased had themselves refused benefits under the Ex-Gratia Scheme.
Furthermore, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that mother of the petitioner had applied for Ex-Gratia appointment only on 06.11.2008 i.e 17 years after the death of her husband. Consequentially, the said application dated 06.11.2008 came to be rejected, as, as per 1991 Policy application for Ex-Gratia appointment has to be made within a period of three years of death of the government employee.
Even nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner or his mother had ever applied to take benefit of Ex-Gratia Scheme of the year 2003, as per which an amount of Rs.2.5 lacs was to be given to the family of the deceased where they have not opted for Ex-Gratia employment. Petitioner or his mother did not even apply for Ex-Gratia compassionate assistance in the 2005 Scheme whereby the said amount of Rs.2.5 lacs was enhanced to Rs.5 lacs. It is only in the year 2018 that the petitioner/his mother had approached the respondent-department.
It is also admitted that the respondent-State has issued Policy/ Instructions dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure P-18) by taking a very lenient view of the matter and to grant an opportunity to persons such as the petitioner to take benefit of the Ex-Gratia Schemes formulated by the respondent-State from time to time. In terms of the said policy applications have to be made within six months from the date of issuance. However, petitioner again failed to avail of the said opportunity.
In the aforesaid facts reference may be made to a 3-judge Bench judgment of a Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tinku Vs. State of Haryana and Others Law Finder DOC Id # 2663957, wherein in similar facts, it was held as follows:-
“1.This Appeal has been preferred by the son of Shri Jai Prakash, a deceased constable in Haryana Police, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, as his father and another constable died while on duty on 22.11.1997. The Appellant then was seven years of age, and the policy which was in force was dated 08.05.1995 which provided for ex-gratia appointment confined to Class III and IV posts. The widow of Balwan Singh, the other police constable, who died along with the father of the Appellant, was granted compassionate appointment as a constable upon her application. xxx xxx xxx xxx
15.The purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give immediate succour to the family. When seen in this conspectus, three years as has been laid down from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority as per the 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right.
16.In the present case, as is apparent from the record, the Appellant attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father. The claim, thus, has rightly been rejected by the respondent State. The decisions of the High Court vide the impugned judgments rejecting the claim of the Appellant thus, cannot be faulted with. xxx xxx xxx xxx
21.The Government of Haryana had taken a conscious decision on 16.03.2011 granting a mercy chance as one-time measure to exercise option for ex-gratia compensation. A perusal of the said decision would show that it was a one-time relaxation for applying for ex-gratia compensation in old cases pertaining to the claims before 01.08.2006. This was done having regard to the fact that in old cases where the family of the deceased employee could not exercise the option within time, due to lack of requisite knowledge or other reasons because of which their dependents could not avail the benefit under the ex-gratia scheme being time-barred. Such dependents were, accordingly, given one more chance to give an option.
22.Admittedly, this decision of the government was never brought to the notice of the mother of the Appellant. It could not be disputed that no intimation whatsoever had been sent to the widow of the deceased government employee regarding the exercise of such an option. Had she been informed, she could have applied for the grant of ex-gratia compensation. The inaction on the part of the State in intimating her of her entitlement to put forth the claim is the reason for she having not opted for it.
23.It would thus be just and reasonable that one opportunity is granted to the widow of the deceased government employee, Jai Prakash and the mother of the Appellant, to make a representation for exercising her option for the grant of lump sum ex-gratia compensation. We permit her to do so. On submission of the representation, the samme shall be considered by the competent authority and a decision taken thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt thereof. The lumpsum compensation, if granted and released within the time stipulated above, shall not carry any interest. However, if a decision is not made and if found entitled, the amount not disbursed within the stipulated time, interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum shall be payable from the date of representation till the date of actual payment.”
Although facts of the present case are somewhat different from the above case - inasmuch as in the present case, mother of the petitioner has refused compassionate employment and compassionate assistance. Whereas, in the above cited case, there is no such refusal by the appellant therein. Nonetheless, keeping in view the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the Policy dated 16.3.2011/P-18 and pass a speaking order within four months from today. In case, petitioner or his mother are found eligible for compassionate appointment/assistance, no consequential benefits or interest shall be payable to the petitioner/ his mother.
Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.