Judgment:
Ranjit Singh, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the action of the respondents in denying her the compassionate financial assistance on account of death of her husband. The husband of the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the post of Workshop Instructor on 12.1.2007. After his selection, he was referred to Chief Medical Officer for medical examination. The husband of the petitioner was accordingly medically examined on 19.1.2007 and was certified to be fit vide Annexure P-2. On 22.1.2007, the husband of the petitioner was issued appointment letter and he joined the service on. 24.1.2007. On 11.1.2008, while coming to join his duty, the husband of the petitioner met with a fatal accident and expired. The petitioner submitted a claim for compassionate financial assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short, '2006 Rules'). The claim of the petitioner was rejected on 1,12.2008. The copy of the same is Annexure P-6. The reasons for rejecting the claim is that the husband of . the petitioner had less than one year service and, thus, the family would not be entitled to compassionate financial assistance. The petitioner represented against the same on 17.12.2008. However, when nothing was done, she has filed the present writ petition.
2. The respondents would defend their action for the same reason for which the claim of the petitioner was declined. It is reiterated that petitioner would not be entitled to compassionate financial assistance as her husband had less than one year of service, when he died. As per the respondents, the petitioner is not eligible to receive the compassionate financial assistance in terms of 2006 Rules. The eligibility for financial assistance is regulated by Paragraph 3 of the Rules. As per this Rule, the eligibility to receive financial assistance shall be as per the provisions of Pension/Family Pension Scheme, 1964. By making reference to Rule 4 of Family Pension Scheme, 1964, it is urged that a Government employee should have completed a minimum period of one year continuous service without break for grant of family pension. It is accordingly stated that the petitioner being not eligible for grant of family pension, would not be eligible for the grant of compassionate financial assistance as well.
3. It is noticed that having been recommended for appointment on 12.1.2007, the husband of the petitioner joined the appointment on 24.1.2007 after completing the formalities of medical examination etc. He died on 11.1.2008. If the husband of the petitioner had been fortunate enough to survive for another 13 days, the petitioner would have become entitled to not only family pension but financial assistance as well. The fate has not deceived the petitioner due to death of her husband but this untimely dead) has rather left further pain and misery for her, making her almost destitute. The respondents of course would be technically right in denying relief but would not look for any compassion, which is the purpose of the Scheme. If death is the main reason for grant of compassionate financial assistance and other purpose being to help the family which is left in destitute on account of death of a bread earner, then the purpose of relating this compassionate assistance to family pension or to service of one year would have no nexus with the Scheme as such. It may, thus, require consideration in some appropriate case whether insisting on the condition of one year service or co-relating the compassionate assistance with the grant of family pension would have any purpose to achieve.
4. In the present case, however, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of family pension and the condition of completing one year continuous service can not be pressed in view of Rule 4 of Family Pension Rules. The counsel would refer to note under the Rules, as per which: Family Pension can be granted before completion of one year continuous service, if the Government employee concerned immediately prior to recruitment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit for the Government service. In support, he has also drawn my attention to the case of Smt. Savitri Devi v. The State of Haryana and Ors. 1996(2) R.S.J. 854. The Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that even if the deceased government employee does not complete one year of continuous service, his dependent would nevertheless be entitled to the grant of family pension provided the deceased was medically examined and found fit and medical certificate of fitness was produced before entering into Government service. The right of the petitioner to make a claim for family pension, thus, is apparently covered by the ratio of law laid down in Smt. Savitri Devi's case (supra). Rule 4 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 reads as under:
4. This scheme is administered as below:
(i) The family pension is admissible in case of death while in service or after retirement on or after the 1st July, 1964, if at the time of death, the retired officer was in receipt of a compensation, invalid retiring or superannuation pension. The Family Pension will not be admissible in case of death after retirement if the retired employee at the time of death was in receipt of gratuity only. In case of death while in service a Government employee should have completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service without break.
Note 1: The term one year continuous service used in para-4(i) above is inclusive of permanent/temporary service in a pensionable establishment but does not include periods of extraordinary leaves, boy service and suspension period unless that is regularized by the competent authority or before completion of one year continuous service provided the deceased Government employee concerned immediately prior to his recruitment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate Medical Authority and declared fit by that authority for Government service.
Perusal of the above note would clearly spell that if an employee is medically examined by Medical authority and declared medically fit then the condition of one year continuous service to become entitle to family pension does not apply.
5. The note under the Rule would clearly show that exception appears to have been carved out in those cases to grant family pension even before completion of one year continuous service provided the deceased Government employee concerned had been examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit by the authority for Government service. The mandate of this Rule was observed as under by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Savitri Devi (supra):
3. The mandate of the aforementioned provision appears to be that in case the Government servant at the time of entry into service produces a Medical Certificate of Fitness, the family would be entitled to Family Pension even if he dies within less than one year. Concededly, the husband of the petitioner did submit the Medical Certificate of Fitness, cop of Annexure P1.
4. The only interpretation which can be placed upon the Scheme as reproduced above is that even if the deceased Government employee does not complete one year of continuous service, his dependents would nevertheless be entitled to the grant of family pension provided the deceased was medically examined and found fit and a Medical Certificate of Fitness is produced before entry into Government Service from a competent Medical Officer. The completion of one year continuous service is, therefore, wholly irrelevant in view of the phraseology of the Family pension Scheme.
6. Following the ratio laid down in the above-noted case, it is held that the petitioner would be entitled to the grant of family pension even when her husband had not completed one year continuous service as prior to his joining, the husband of the petitioner had appeared for medical examination and had been offered appointment only on having been found fit. Once the petitioner is held entitled to grant of family pension, she would be eligible for grant of compassionate financial assistance in terms of 2006 Rules as she would be eligible under Rule 3, which reads as under:
Eligibility. 3. The eligibility to receive financial assistance, these rules shall be as per the provision in pension/family pension scheme 1964.
7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Direction is issued to the respondent-State to grant compassionate financial assistance to the petitioner under 2006 Rules. Needless to mention that the petitioner would also be entitled to the family pension though in terms of 2006 Rules.