Allowed

Sushila Devi v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jan 2023CWP/12925/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking financial assistance for the deceased husband of the petitioner. The court held that since no departmental proceedings were initiated against the deceased regarding a registration condition, the petitioner is eligible for concessional financial assistance with interest from the date of death.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be considered for financial assistance under Rule 6; response within two months; interest at 9% p.a. from date of death.

Sushila Devi Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CWP No.12925 of 2021 (O&M)

¶2

�

¶3

243

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP No.12925 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.01.2023

SUSHILA DEVI

......Petitioner

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶12

Present:Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, D.A.G., Haryana. ****

¶14

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)

¶15

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents for the release of monthly financial assistance, ex-gratia grant and other benefits admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased i.e. the petitioner along with interest.

¶16

The husband of the petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse (male) in BPS Medical College for Women, Khanpur Kalan, District Sonepat (Haryana) on 15.05.2013. As per terms and conditions of the appointment letter, the husband of the

¶17

MOHMED ATIK 2023.01.11 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶18

CWP No.12925 of 2021 (O&M) �

¶19

petitioner was required to get himself registered with the Haryana Nurses Registration Council within six months from the date of joining the service, otherwise his service was liable to be terminated without assigning any reason.

¶20

No such action was taken by the respondents when husband of the petitioner did not comply with condition No.5 of the appointment letter. Rather the respondents allowed the husband of the petitioner to complete his probation period of two years successfully. Husband of the petitioner died on 11.10.2020.

¶21

The petitioner has applied for the release of monthly financial assistance, ex-gratia grants and other benefits as per Rule 6 of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 which came into effect from 01.08.2019. The date of birth of husband of the petitioner was 01.08.1964. He would have completed the age of 60 years in the year 2024 had he been alive. The case of the petitioner falls under Clause 3 of Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules, which prescribes that the admissibility of financial assistance from the next day of the death of the Government employee for a period of 7 years or upto the date of attaining the age of superannuation or 60 years whichever is earlier subject to eligibility.

¶22

Since the respondent-Department has not taken any

¶23

MOHMED ATIK 2023.01.11 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶24

CWP No.12925 of 2021 (O&M) �

¶25

action against husband of the petitioner for not submitting registration certificate from the Haryana Nurses Registration Council within six months from the date of his joining the service, rather the probation period of the husband of the petitioner was cleared without there being any objection, therefore, the eligibility of the petitioner is not in dispute.

¶26

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner refers to the order dated 19.08.2016 passed in CWP No.11196 of 2009 titled 'Krishna Shanwal vs. Choudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and another ' wherein similar issue arose for consideration of the Court and the Court ultimately held that since no departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner therein, therefore, the benefit to the legal heirs cannot be withheld. The said writ petition was allowed and the respondents therein were directed to release the retiral benefits of the deceased within a time bound manner along with interest @ 9% per annum.

¶27

In view of aforesaid factual position of the case, the alleged contemplation on behalf of the respondents to initiate any action at this belated stage is totally unwarranted.

¶28

This writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of Rule 6 of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial

¶29

MOHMED ATIK 2023.01.11 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶30

CWP No.12925 of 2021 (O&M) �

¶31

Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 and pass an appropriate order in this context. The entitlement of the petitioner shall be adjudged from the date of accrual of the benefit i.e. from the date of death of husband of the petitioner on 11.10.2020 till final realisation of the amount along with interest @ 9% per annum.

¶32

Let the needful in the aforesaid context be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶33

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) January 10 , 2023 JUDGE Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶34

MOHMED ATIK 2023.01.11 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Sushila Devi v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila Devi v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Talvir Singh Vs the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and Anr.

Saroj Vs Chief Administrator and Anr.

Som Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sunder Sham Arora Vs State of Punjab

Gainder Devi Vs the Kaithal Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Nr

Union of India and Another Vs M/S Girdhari Lal and Anr.