Single judge direction to respondent State to consider the petitioner's legal notice dated 10.11.2017 regarding compassionate financial assistance and pass an order within two months.
Direction to respondent No.2 to consider the legal notice dated 10.11.2017 and pass an appropriate order within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CWP No.21425 of 2018(O&M)
221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.21425 of 2018(O&M) Date of Decision:18.01.2023
RAJ RANI
..... Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, DAG, Haryana.
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
[1]. The petitioner has preferred this petition for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance of Rs.5 lacs along with the interest under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employee Rules, 2005.
[2]. The husband of the petitioner was an employee of the Transport Department, Haryana and was working as a Fitter in
PRINCE SAINI 2023.01.18 17.04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CWP No.21425 of 2018(O&M) 2
the office of the respondent No.3 and he died on 10.04.1996 while in service.
[3]. After the demise of her husband, the petitioner did not file any claim for her compassionate appointment, rather her son Dinesh filed a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction against the respondent-State.
[4]. The suit was filed on 02.02.2008 i.e. after coming into force of 2005 Rules. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2009, however, the same was reversed in first appeal before the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2010. The order was upheld in RSA No.2772 of 2010, which was dismissed on 23.08.2016. After dismissal of the claim of son of the petitioner, the petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondents on 10.11.2017.
[5]. Perusal of the pleadings in the present writ petition would indicate that there is no averment made in the petition as regards filing of any application under 2005 Rules.
[6]. Vide order dated 26.04.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to place on record an application, which the petitioner had submitted prior to the promulgation of 2005 Rules for the grant of compassionate assistance to the petitioner.
[7]. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
PRINCE SAINI 2023.01.18 17.04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CWP No.21425 of 2018(O&M)
3
there is no such application available with the petitioner. The claim as regards the relief of compassionate assistance after promulgation of 2005 Rules has been raked up only in the form of serving a legal notice dated 10.11.2017.
[8]. At this stage, without meaning anything on merits of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the legal notice dated 10.11.2017 of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
[9]. Disposed of.
18.01.2023
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE
Prince
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
PRINCE SAINI 2023.01.18 17.04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition is maintainable when no application under the 2005 Rules has been filed after their promulgation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAJ RANI
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
RAJ MOHAN SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
