Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
Mamtesh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CWP No. 13190 of 2018
Decided On : 22-04-2019
Haryana Compassionate Assistance - Denial of benefits under 2006 Rules - Rule 2 and 3 of 2006 Rules, Family Pension Scheme, 1964 - Interpretation of 'regular service' - Temporary service - Wider interpretation of beneficial provisions
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's husband, a driver on a contractual basis, died while in service. The petitioner claimed benefits under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (2006 Rules). The claim was declined on the ground that only legal heirs of regular employees are entitled to benefits under the 2006 Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's husband, though initially on a contract basis, was appointed through a regular selection process and his service should be considered as 'temporary service' under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits under the 2006 Rules.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of 'regular service' and 'temporary service' under the 2006 Rules and the Family Pension Scheme, 1964.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the 2006 Rules and the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, to provide a wider and beneficial interpretation, allowing the petitioner to claim benefits despite her husband's initial contractual appointment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to release the benefits admissible to the petitioner under the 2006 Rules.
JUDGMENT
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.(Oral) - In the present writ petition, the grievance which is raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner has been denied the benefits accruing to her under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "2006 Rules"). The claim of the petitioner for the grant of the benefits has been declined vide order dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure P/10) on the ground that the husband of the petitioner, who was working as a driver with the respondent-Department, was not regular employee on the date when he died and under 2006 Rules, only legal heirs of the regular employee are entitled for the benefits under 2006 Rules.
2. As per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, husband of the petitioner, namely, Sh. Jai Narain, was appointed as a driver on contractual basis on 28.08.2002 on a fixed salary of Rs. 2410/- per month. He was selected as a Driver after due advertisement and after considering the claim of all eligible persons. In pursuance to the said selection, husband of the petitioner was appointed vide appointment letter dated 25.07.2002, ultimately, joined on 28.08.2002. At the time of the selection, husband of the petitioner had cleared the medical fitness test also. Unfortunately, while working as a driver, husband of the petitioner, who was suffering from cancer, ultimately, died on 12.05.2007. After the death, the petitioner made a claim for the grant of the benefits to her as envisaged under 2006 Rules. As the benefits were not being released to the petitioner, she approached this Court by filing CWP No. 24886 of 2017, which was disposed of by this Court on 02.11.2017 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of benefits under 2006 Rules by passing an appropriate speaking order. In pursuance to the said direction given by this Court, respondents passed an order on 26.03.2018 (Annexure P/10) declining the claim of the petitioner. The reason for declining was that as per 2006 Rules, only the legal heirs of a regular employee are entitled for the benefits and as the petitioner's husband was not working on regular basis, the case for the grant of benefits under 2006 Rules was not covered. The said order dated 26.03.2018 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. Upon notice of motion, respondents have filed the reply. In the reply also, the same stand has been taken by the respondents that as the late husband of the petitioner was not a regular driver with the respondent, no benefit under 2006 rules can be extended. The relevant portion of the reply is as under:-
"1. That the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure P-10), vide which the monthly financial assistance has been denied to the petitioner.
2. That it is respectfully submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the grounds that the monthly financial assistance claimed by the petitioner is not valid. It is worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner's husband late Sh. Jai Narain Driver No. 60/295 was appointed on contractual basis with effect from 28.08.2002. According to the notification 2003, issued by the Transport Department, Haryana, the services of the employee may be regularized on completion of six years of regular satisfactory services. The copy of the same is annexed as Annexure R-1. It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner's Sh. Jai Narayan Driver has upgraded in driver grade 2nd vide this office order no. 7295/EA/ECD dated 05.11.2014. It is worthwhile to mention here that the services of Sh. Jai Narayan has not been regularized in grade 1st due to his death, he has expired on 12.05.2007. It is further clarified that the monthly finance assistance case sent to the Director State Transport, Haryana, Chandigarh vide this office letter no. 485/ECD dated 09.05.2015. The Director State Transport, Haryana, Chandigarh issue
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
