CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5609 OF 2007 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: February 13, 2008 Parties Name Khushi Ram ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. J.P.Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. Father of the petitioner, namely, Giani Ram was working as Veterinary and Lives Stock Development Assistant in the department of Animal Husbandry and Dairy in the State of Haryana. He died in service on June 16, 2006. To give benefit to the dependents of deceased Government employees, at the time of death, the rules known as Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005, were in vogue (in short 2005 Rules). Petitioner moved an application, to get appointment on compassionate grounds, as per the provisions of Rules, referred to above, on July 17, 2006. During the pendency of his application, new rules known as the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (in short 2006 Rules) came into existence on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5609 OF 2007 -2 August 1, 2006. By passing order Annexure P-4 on October 13, 2006, it was intimated to the petitioner that in view of 2006 Rules, he was entitled to get only ex gratia financial assistance and not appointment, as claimed by him. Hence this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities were supposed to consider case of the petitioner as per provisions of the Rules, which were in existence at the time of death of the father of the petitioner. He further submits that case of the petitioner is fully covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2007(3) R.S.J. 121. Nothing has been shown to the contrary. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are convinced that prayer of the petitioner is fully covered by ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme in Abhishek Kumar's case (supra), in which their Lordships, while dealing with similar controversy, have observed thus: “Appellant herein had sought for appointment on compassionate grounds at a point of time when 2003 Rules were not in existence. His case, therefore, was required to be considered in terms of the Rules which were in existence in the year 2001. Evidently, in the State of Haryana a State-wise list is maintained. In terms of the said list so maintained by the State of Haryana, the appellant was entitled to obtain an appointment on compassionate grounds. He was offered such an appointment by the State. It was the District Magistrate who came on the way and refused to provide for the post.” It is not in dispute that when father of the petitioner died, 2005 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5609 OF 2007 -3 Rules were in existence, which provided for appointment on compassionate basis and in the alternative, financial assistance also. Petitioner has opted for the post. As per policy of the State Government, 5% posts, in sanctioned strength of the cadre have to be offered to the dependents of deceased Government employees and a list was being prepared for the said purpose. If the petitioner was eligible as per his seniority in that list, the authorities are directed to consider his case under the 2005 Rules and in case , he is not getting post ear-marked for the said purpose, his case be considered for grant of financial assistance under the 2005 Rules. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( Jaswant Singh) February 13, 2008. Judge DKC