CWP-23540-2021 (O&M) 1 of 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 CWP-23540-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Suresh ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sandeep Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suneel Ranga, D.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a suitable writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant ex-gratia benefits (Monthly Financial Assistance) to the petitioner with effect from the date of death of her husband i.e. from 07.06.2005 alongwith all consequential benefits that flow therefrom with penal interest @18% per annum. 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of the petitioner, namely, late Sh. Krishan Kumar was working as a regular Driver with the respondent-Department. He had died in harness on 07.06.2005 during the course of employment. He left behind 5 legal heirs being the petitioner/wife, 3 daughters, and 1 son. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23540-2021 (O&M) 2 of 10 Due to untimely death of her husband, petitioner and her children were facing great financial hardship. 3. It is submitted that State of Haryana had notified the rules called "The Haryana Compassionate Assistance Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2006 Rules"), (Annexure P-2). The object of the rules is to assist the family of the deceased/missing Government employee in tiding over the emergent situation resulting from the loss of the bread earner by giving Financial Assistance. As per Rule 3 eligibility to receive financial assistance under the rules is as per the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (Annexure P-3). As per item no.4 (1) of the said scheme the family pension would be admissible in case of death of a government employee while in service and has completed minimum period of one year of continuous service without break. Hence the main condition is of completion of one-year continuous service; which the husband of the petitioner fulfils; and thus, the petitioner is eligible to receive Monthly Financial Assistance under the Rules, 2006. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the husband of the petitioner was a regular employee of the department and the aforesaid rules are also applicable upon him but still the benefits thereof has not been released till date to the petitioner. The respondent department has illegally withheld the ex- gratia benefits of the husband of the petitioner. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23540-2021 (O&M) 3 of 10 5. The petitioner had even served a legal notice dated 20.10.2020 (Annexure P-4) upon the respondent-Department. However, though petitioner is fully eligible and entitled to receive monthly financial assistance in terms of Rule, 2006, yet till date claim of the petitioner has not been considered, nor benefits released. In support, ld. counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Kamlesh v. State of Haryana, (P&H) (DB): Law Finder Doc Id# 124501. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that 2006 Rules are not applicable to the case of petitioner as husband of the petitioner had died on 07.06.2005; at which time, The Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules-2003 notified on 28.02.2003 (hereinafter "the 2003 Rules"), were applicable. In the said Rules, there is no provision to provide monthly financial assistance to the dependents of deceased employee. 7. Furthermore, petitioner has withheld material facts from this Court in-as-much-as the petitioner has failed to reveal in her Writ Petition that previously petitioner had filed Civil Suit No. 19/1 of 2007 for regularization of service of her husband w.e.f. 23.03.1998 instead of 24.08.2004 and to provide a suitable job under ex-gratia scheme on compassionate ground by declaring the order dated 30.08.2005 as illegal. The Civil Suit No.19/1 of 2007 was dismissed vide judgment and DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23540-2021 (O&M) 4 of 10 decree dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure R-3). The petitioner had filed Civil Appeal No. 257 of 2009 against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2009 but the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2011 (Annexure R-4). The petitioner has concealed and suppressed the judgments dated 12.11.2009 and 30.04.2011 from this Court. Thus, judgments dated 12.11.2009 and 30.04.2011 had attained finality and the petitioner cannot wriggle out of these judgments. Accordingly, dismissal of the present Writ Petition is prayed for. 8. No other argument is raised by ld. counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of respondent-State. 9. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Krishan Kumar was initially appointed as Driver with the respondent Department on 04.08.1995. Services of Krishan Kumar were regularized on 24.08.2004. Krishan Kumar died on 07.06.2005. Consequentially, petitioner is seeking ex-gratia benefits admissible to the dependents of the deceased employee under the Rules, 2006 (Annexure P-2). 10. However, the claim of the petitioner is utterly misconceived and not maintainable. The Rules-2006 (Annexure P-2) came into existence on 01.08.2006. Prior to these rules, The Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules-2003 notified on 28.02.2003 (Annexure R-1), were applicable. In these Rules-2003 there was no provision of monthly financial assistance to the dependents of deceased employees. The DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23540-2021 (O&M) 5 of 10 Rules-2003 were repealed by the Government vide "Haryana Compassionate Assistance and Employment to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules-2005" notified on 18.11.2005 and in these Rules 2005 there was no provision of monthly financial assistance to the dependents of deceased employee. Thereafter, Rules- 2005 were repealed by the Government vide "Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules-2006" notified on 01.08.2006 (Annexure P-2) and in these Rules- 2006 the provision of financial assistance a sum equal to the pay and other allowances that was last drawn by the deceased employee in the normal course, came into existence for the first time. The husband of the petitioner had died on 07.06.2005; and at that time the above- mentioned Rules-2003 were applicable and were in existence. The Rules- 2006 were not applicable at that time. 11. As per Rules 2003, the option was to be exercised by an eligible family member of the deceased government employee under Rule-4, which reads as under: - "4. (I) A dependent of the deceased/missing Government employee shall give in writing his/her preference of option, within 3 years from the date of death of the Government employee, for one of the following:- (a) ex-gratia appointment on compassionate grounds to a member of the family who was "completely dependent" on the deceased employee and is an extreme financial distress due to the loss of the deceased, the Government employee who dies in "service" DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23540-2021 (O&M) 6 of 10 Or (b) ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance to the family of the deceased, over and above all other benefits like ex-gratia grant due to his/her family, to be paid @ Rs. 2.5 lacs in case of the family of the deceased not opting for ex-gratia employment. (2) Exercise of option shall be permitted only once and shall not be changed, once exercised." The deceased government employee is defined in Rule-3(d) of Rules 2003, as under:- "(d) "deceased Government Employee" means a Government employee- (i) appointed on regular basis, and not working on daily wages, casual, apprentice, work changed, adhoc, contractual or re-employment basis; (ii) who has served the Government for atleast 3 years. (iii) who should not have crossed the age of 55 years." 12. It is to be noted that after the death of her husband on 07.06.2005, the petitioner had opted for ex-gratia appointment instead of ex-gratia financial assistance of Rs. 2.5 lacs. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent Department vide order no.2242 dated 30.08.2005 as per above mentioned Rule 3(d)(ii) of Rules 2003 because the husband of the petitioner had not served the government for at least 3 years on regular basis. As noted above, services of the husband of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 24.08.2004 on the post of Driver during his lifetime; and upon his death DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23540-2021 (O&M) 7 of 10 on 07.06.2005, he had served on regular basis for 9 months and 13 days only. 13. The record further reveals that thereafter, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 16.09.2005 (Annexure R-2) for reconsidering the claim for appointment after recalling the order no. 2242 dated 30.08.2005. It may be pointed out that the order dated 30.08.2005 had attained finality as the same had not been set aside either by any court of law or by any departmental appellate authority. 14. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed Civil Suit No. 19/1 of 2007 for regularization of service of her husband w.e.f. 23.03.1998 instead of 24.08.2004 and to provide a suitable job under ex-gratia scheme on compassionate ground by declaring the above-mentioned order dated 30.08.2005 as illegal. It is imperative to note that the petitioner has failed to disclose that prior to filing of the present writ petition, she had filed the above said Civil Suit. The said Civil Suit No.19/1 of 2007 came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure R-3). The petitioner had filed Civil Appeal No. 257 of 2009 against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2009 but the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2011 (Annexure R-4). The judgments dated 12.11.2009 and 30.04.2011 have also attained finality. 15. The petitioner has concealed and suppressed the said judgments dated 12.11.2009 and 30.04.2011 from this Court. In this DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23540-2021 (O&M) 8 of 10 circumstance, reference is made to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 129385; wherein it is held as under: - “A. Writ jurisdiction - Suppression of material facts - Discretionary jurisdiction. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis - If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the Court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction - Lis may be viewed from the human rights concept of access to justice. B. Two parallel remedies - Court would not ordinarily permit a party to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter.” 16. Thus, claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected on this short ground itself. 17. It is reiterated that a bare perusal of the application dated 16.09.2005 (Annexure R-2) submitted by the petitioner, judgment and decree dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure R-3) and judgment and decree dated 30.04.2011 (Annexure R-4) makes it crystal clear that the claim of the petitioner for ex-gratia appointment was rejected vide order dated 30.08.2005 as per Rules-2003 (Annexure R-1) which were applicable and in existence at that time. The Rules-2006 (Annexure P-2) came into existence on 01.08.2006 i.e. after the death of the husband of the petitioner on 7.6.2005. Even further, prior to these Rules the claim of the petitioner as per her option as per Rules 2003 were rejected vide order dated 30.08.2005 which has attained finality. Thus, petitioner is not DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23540-2021 (O&M) 9 of 10 entitled for the relief claimed in the present writ petition for monthly financial assistance because the claim of the petitioner already stands considered and rejected in terms of the 2003 Rules which were applicable at the relevant time. 18. Last but not the least, the claim of the petitioner is time barred also. The cause of action if any, had occurred in favour of petitioner for the same relief as in the present writ petition in the year 2006 at the time when the Rules-2006 were notified on 01.08.2006 and at the time of passing of order dated 30.08.2005 vide which her claim for appointment was rejected by competent authority which was challenged by the petitioner in the above mentioned civil suit and civil appeal. Whereas the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in the year 2021 which is after lapse of about 15 years from Rules-2006 and about 16 years from order dated 30.08.2005. Hence the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the point of delay and laches as per limitation act. The law in this regard has already been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Rajinder Singh, 1999 SCC (L&S) 664 and State of Punjab Vs. Darshan Kumar, 1996 (2) SCT 208 on the point of limitation. 19. Petitioner has relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Kamlesh supra. However, the said judgment is distinguishable on facts and law. 20. The present Civil Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23540-2021 (O&M) 10 of 10 21. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 06.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document