IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP.NO.12501 of 2007 DATE OF ORDER: 29.2.2008 Kavita ....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and Others .....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. K.S. Banyana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. JASBIR SINGH,J (ORAL) By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed that order dated 8.6.2007 (P.4), vide which claim of the petitioner to get ex-gratia financial assistance, has been declined, be quashed. Petitioner's husband died in harness on 1.4.2005. State of Haryana has framed the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as “2005 Rules”) to give appointment on compassionate basis or financial assistance to the dependents of the deceased government employees. By taking note of the provisions of those Rules, the petitioner moved an application for getting the requisite benefits. However, her request was rejected vide order dated 8.6.2007 (P.4) by stating that her case is not covered under the provisions of the 2005 Rules as referred to above. From reading of the above Rules, it is clear that to be eligible to get any benefit under those Rules, the deceased government employee must have rendered three years service with the Government. In the present case, admittedly, husband of the petitioner died after rendering one year, five months and 15 days of service with the State of Haryana. By taking note of CWP.NO.12501 of 2007 #2# that, benefit was declined to the petitioner. In the mean time, the State of Haryana has framed new rules in the year 2006. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to get benefits under 2006 Rules, is liable to be rejected. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others-2007 (3) RSJ-121 has specifically held that the policy, which was in vogue, when death had occurred, can be relied upon for giving benefits to the dependents of the deceased government employees. Para No.5 of the judgment reads 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.” In view of the facts mentioned above, no case for interference is made out. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE February 29, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE