232

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

LPA-984-2018 (O&M)

in CWP 25988-2016

Date of decision:24.01.2023

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

... Appellants

Versus

SUSHILA DEVI

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO,

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

Present:

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana

for the appellant.

Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Advocate for

Mr. Narender Pal Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.

****

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J. (ORAL)

This appeal is filed by the State challenging order dated

12.01.2018 in CWP-25988-2016.

Respondent is the wife of Late Sandeep Kumar-Constable, who

was one of 1600 odd Constables, whose selection was set aside by Division

Bench of this Court on 16.02.1996 which was also confirmed by the Supreme

Court.

SONIA

2023.02.03 10:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

LPA-984-2018 (O&M) in

CWP 25988-2016

2

But the Supreme Court directed that all the candidates from the 1995

selection would be entitled to appear for fresh recruitment as Constables in

2001.

According to the respondent, her husband was again inducted/enrolled in

Haryana Police w.e.f. 10.03.2003 as a Constable with No.5/478 in 5^th

Battalion, Madhuban and he was made regular in service with immediate

effect. He was exempted from probation period, training period and medical

on the basis of his earlier service.

The husband of respondent met with a road accident and succumbed to

injuries and died on 15.04.2004.

The respondent is receiving only family pension after her husband’s

death, but the petitioner was denied both companionate appointment as well as

ex-gratia under the 2003 Rules by order dt. 22.07.2016 passed by the Director

General of Police, Haryana on the ground that her husband had not served the

Government for 03 years.

She then filed CWP-25988-2016 claiming inter alia compassionate

appointment as well as ex-gratia and challenging the said order dt. 22.07.2016

passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana.

Learned Single Judge considered the contentions of the appellant

as well as those of respondent and relied on benefit granted to one PHC

Kanwer Pal Singh No.14 YNR in respect of whom an order was passed by the

Director General of Police, Haryana on 22.07.2016 and held that respondent’s

case is on parity.

SONIA

2023.02.03 10:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

LPA-984-2018 (O&M) in

CWP 25988-2016

3

Learned Single Judge then went on to consider the question

whether the claim of the respondent should be processed under the Rules of

2003 or 2005 or by the comprehensive Rules promulgated by the State of

Haryana in 2006, replacing previous policies restricting financial benefits but

not providing employment. He held that the respondent had right of

consideration under 2003 Policy in the first instance which gives right to both

compassionate appointment and to financial assistance, but preferentially the

claim deserves to be processed under the 2006 Rules to provide the petitioner

the benefits in terms of the formula devised in Rule 6 of the said Rules. He

held that the correspondence exchanged between respondent and the

Department suggest that it has been in progress since 2004, but had not yielded

any result except the Department declining the request by the impugned order.

He held that the claim of compassionate appointment is being declined and it is

a fit case to allow grant of financial assistance to her under the 2006 Rules.

Counsel for the State sought to contend that the learned Single

Judge erred in placing reliance on the order passed in the case of PHC Kanwer

Pal Singh and applying it to the case of the respondent and also giving benefit

to the respondent under the 2006 Policy instead of 2003 Policy. He sought to

contend that the husband of the respondent had not been re-s