General Manager, Dhbvn, Hisar And ... vs Babita Devi
2023 Latest Caselaw 19778 P&H

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144852




                                          2023:PHHC:144852
124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                          RSA-2125-2019 (O&M)
                                          Date of decision: 15.11.2023

General Manager (Administration), DHBVN, Hisar and others

                                                 ....Appellants
              Versus

Babita Devi
                                                ..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:- Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Addl. AG, Haryana for the appellants

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

CM-5757-C-2019

1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 78

days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

2. CM stands allowed.

CM-5758-C-2019

3. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 47

days in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. CM stands allowed.

Main case

5. In this Regular Second Appeal, the correctness of the

facts arrived at by the courts below is questioned by the defendants.

The plaintiff is a widow of the former employee of the appellant.

Her husband died on 05.06.2005. The Haryana Government

notified the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144852

RSA-2125-2019 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:144852

of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter

referred to as '2006 Rules').

6. The respondent submitted the application for grant of

the financial assistance in accordance with 2006 Rules. She was

granted the benefit vide letter dated 12.03.2007. However, the

benefit was withdrawn vide letter dated 27.11.2007. On 08.06.2007

the State issued clarification that the 2006 Rules shall be applicable

only to the employees who died in harness after 01.08.2006. The

correctness of such clarification was quashed by the High Court in

Darshna Devi vs. State of Haryana' CWP-19322-2010 decided on

14.05.2012.

7. Learned counsel representing the appellant admits that

the respondent is being paid in accordance with the 2006 Rules.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel

representing the appellant failed to draw the attention of the Court to

any substantive error in the judgments passed by the courts below.

Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.

9. Dismissed.

10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are

also disposed of.

15.11.2023                                     (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :        Yes/No
Whether reportable :               Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144852

2 of 2