AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Jindal, J.—The Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani, vide judgment dated 27.09.2007 accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred as ''the plaintiff'') and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred as ''the defendants'') against the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, whereby suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the order of recovery dated 27.03.2002 from the pensionary benefits payable to her on the death of her husband, as illegal. She has also challenged the order dated 11.11.2002 passed by the defendants, by virtue of which, she was denied the compassionate appointment and further prayed for refund of the amount, withheld by the defendants out of the pensionary benefits against the recovery to be effected from her husband, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum upon the amount, so withheld.
The trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and awarded refund of Rs. 76,250/-, which was kept in suspense account by the defendants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the said amount and delayed payment of the pensionary benefits with effect from January, 2001 till the date of payment. The said judgment was challenged by the plaintiff with a prayer that she may be given compassionate appointment.
At the same time, the defendants also filed an appeal against the said judgment. The first Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants, partly accepted the appeal of Kamlesh Devi to the effect that the recovery of amount of Rs. 76,250/- cannot be made and the amount be released to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accrual the realization of the whole amount with a further declaration that plaintiff-Kamlesh is entitled to a job on compassionate grounds under ex-gratia scheme in accordance with rules of the Government of Haryana. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred this regular second appeal.
Arguments heard. Primarily the plaintiff had claimed two reliefs i.e. (i) grant of family pension and ex-gratia appointment, (ii) certain recoveries effected from her deceased husband were not valid.
The trial Court held that the recovery could not be effected, which had started after the death of the employee. However, it declined the ex-gratia appointment on the ground that one son of the deceased was already an employee.
The first Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal of the defendants, held that the plaintiff would also be entitled to ex-gratia appointment. While taking this view, the definition of the family as contained in Punjab Civil Service Rules for grant of family pension was taken into consideration, where unmarried minor son has been taken to be a part of the family. Therefore, following questions of law arise for determination by this Court:-
Whether definition of the family, as given in the Rules could be taken into consideration while issuing direction for grant of ex-gratia appointment, as contained in the Rules of ex-gratia.
Before settling the controversy, it needs to be observed that the trial Court declined to grant ex-gratia appointment on the ground that Dilbagh Singh son of Kamlesh Devi-plaintiff, was earning Rs. 6000/- per month being a J.B.T. Teacher and was having common ration card with the plaintiff. Copies of the instructions of the department regarding grant of employment under ex-gratia scheme, marked as Ex. R/17 and Ex. R/18, indicate that when one son is an earning hand, than the widow of the deceased employee was not entitled to the benefit of ex-gratia scheme. Copy of the certificate of income of Dilbagh Singh was marked as Ex. R/19. This, it appears that the trial Court was right in observing that the plaintiff was not entitled to get the benefit of the ex-gratia scheme, as their family income at the relevant time, was even more than Rs. 72,000/- per annum. As such, the view taken by the first Appellate Court was not correct.
No doubt, the word ''family'' has not been defined under the Pension Rules, but I am afraid to hold that a son of the plaintiff, who has been drawing the income of more Rs. 72,000/-per annum, is not a member of the family of the deceased, particularly when it is proved that he was holding a joint ration card with the plaintiff. I am also constrained to hold that the income of the plaintiff was not sufficient to meet the financial expenses, which may entitle her to seek financial assistance in terms of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules 2003. The relevant clauses of the aforesaid Rules read as under:-
Definitions: In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:-
(a) xx xx xx xx
(b) "compassionate financial assistance" means the financial assistance to the tune of 2.5 lacs, provided as ex-gratia assistance over and above all other benefits to the completely dependent members of the indigent family of the deceased;
(c) to (g) xx xx xx xx
(h) "Indigent family" where the family of the deceased/missing Government employee is completely dependent upon him/her and deserve immediate assistance for relief from destitution and whose income does not exceed Rs. 6000/- per month including the family pension.
Xx xx xx xx
Criteria of eligibility:
The criteria for eligibility under these Rules shall be as under:-
(a) The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution.
(b) The monthly income of the family shall not exceed Rs. 6000/- per month, from all sources other than family pension. For this purpose, the income of the entire family of the deceased Government employee will be taken into account and not just the income of the dependent who has applied for appointment on compassionate grounds.
(c) The applicant for appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules.
(d) Where spouse of the deceased is already in Government service, no other dependent member shall be eligible for appointment or ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance.
(e) Married son of the deceased will be eligible only if no other member of the family is eligible for Government service and his spouse is not already in Government service and unmarried eligible dependent is not willing to join service and give an affidavit to this effect.
A perusal of the above provisions would show that financial assistance is payable to the completely dependent member of the indigent family of the deceased. A reading of Clause 8 (e) of the above Rules reveals that even married son of the deceased was eligible for appointment in Government service on compassionate ground, meaning thereby, he was already considered to be a member of the family. Thus, a family of the deceased employee would include the married son as well.
It is not in dispute that Dilbagh Singh son of the deceased, was a J.B.T. Teacher and was fetching a monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- per month at that time. Even if, the plaintiff was not being maintained by aforesaid Dilbagh Singh, then she could claim any right over him for her maintenance, as he was gainfully employed in Government service.
Even otherwise, the plaintiff could not force as of right to consider her for appointment on compassionate ground. It is not a vested right, but this help is provided by the Government to get over the difficulties and financial crises, which a family faces on account of death of the sole breadwinner. Here in this case, the deceased was not the sole breadwinner of the family, but his son was also there to extend financial assistance to the plaintiff. As such, the substantial question of law, as framed by this Court, is decided in favour of the defendants-appellants.
No other point has been raised.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the benefit of ex-gratia appointment on compassionate ground cannot be extended to the plaintiff. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the appellants is partly accepted and the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court qua the relief of ex-gratia appointment on compassionate ground, is set aside.