State Of Haryana v. Saroj Panwar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH [1] Civil Writ Petition No.11276 of 2013 Date of Decision: July 13, 2015 State of Haryana .......Petitioner versus Saroj Panwar and others .....Respondents [2] Civil Writ Petition No.16223 of 2013 Date of Decision: July 13, 2015 Saroj Panwar and others .....Petitioners versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.

Present: Mr.Naveen Kaushik, Additional AG, Haryana, for the petitioner in CWP No.11276 of 2013 and for respondent No.2 in CWP No.16223 of 2013.

Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.16223 of 2013 and for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in CWP No.11276 of 2013. -.-

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.11276 and 16223 of 2013 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases.

For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.11276 of 2013.

[2] State of Haryana assails the order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby the petitioner-authorities have been directed

CWP Nos.11276 and 16223 of 2013.

[2] to release the payment of ex-gratia amount in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 as per the State Government Policy. [3] The facts may be noticed briefly. The husband of first respondent and father of respondent Nos.2 & 3, namely, late Ramesh Chander Panwar was a member of Haryana Forest Service. His Original Application filed alongwith other batchmates seeking appointment to Indian Forest Service was pending before the Tribunal when he unfortunately died on 01.12.1998. That Original Application was allowed on 28.09.1999 and pursuant thereto, the select list for the year 1996 was prepared in which the name of deceased-officer was also included. There was yet another round of litigation and finally the deceased officer with his two batch-mates was appointed to Indian Forest Service (for short, 'IFS') against the vacancies of year 1997.

He was thus a member of IFS for all intents and purposes when he unfortunately died. [4] The widow of the deceased, namely, respondent No.1 was meanwhile appointed by the State Government under its ex-gratia Policy. After the induction of her deceasedhusband in IFS, she alongwith her two minor children applied for the award ex-gratia amount of Rs.5.00 lacs. That claim was resisted by State Government on the ground that respondent No.1 had already been appointed under the ex-gratia Policy. [5] The Tribunal vide order under challenge rejected such a plea on the strength of the Government Policy which does not create such an embargo. That apart, other two claimants are minor children of the deceased-employee, against whom the State's plea was inapplicable.

CWP Nos.11276 and 16223 of 2013.

[3] to the respondents, directed the State authorities to release the due amount though subject to the final order in this petition.

[7] Learned State counsel informs that the said order has already been complied with.

[8] As the facts would speak for themselves, neither the induction of the deceased-employee to IFS nor appointment of respondent No.1 under the ex-gratia Policy caused any legal impediment against the release of ex-gratia amount as per the Policy.

[9] No case thus to interfere with the impugned order is made out.

[10] Dismissed.

CWP No.16223 of 2013 [11] Having regard to the fact that the State Government has fairly resisted the claim of the petitioners, though it has finally been upheld in their favour, we are of the considered view that no amount of interest is payable to them. We thus decline to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

[12] Dismissed.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE July 13, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE