IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4416 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision: 19.2.2008 Sunil Kumar Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Shri S.N.Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner Shri M.S.Sindhu, D.A.G. Haryana for the respondents Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) CM No.2757 of 2008 Application allowed, replication is taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No.4416 of 2007 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays that directions be issued to the respondents, to give him appointment in service on compassionate basis, as per Policy(s) of the State of Haryana. It is an admitted fact that father of the petitioner died in harness on 23.8.2003. At the time of his death, the rules known as the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules 2003 (in short 2003 rules) were in existence. Taking note Civil Writ Petition No.4416 of 2007(O&M) of the provisions of above said rules, the petitioner moved an application to get appointment in service. His case was kept pending and ultimately, he was intimated that, in the meantime, new rules known as the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules 2006 (in short 2006 rules) have come into existence and in those rules, there is no provision for giving appointment on compassionate basis. Offer was given to him to accept financial assistance as per the provisions of new rules. Hence, this writ petition. After hearing counsel for the parties, we feel that in view of ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2007(3) RSJ 121, case of the petitioner is required to be decided as per provisions of 2003 rules. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar’s (supra), while dealing with a similar controversy observed thus:- “5. 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.” 2 Civil Writ Petition No.4416 of 2007(O&M) Same is the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court in Amarjit Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2007(1) SLR 251. In view of facts mentioned above, this writ petition is disposed of and the respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for getting ex-gratia benefits as per 2003 rules. Needful be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (Jasbir Singh) Judge February 19, 2008 (Jaswant Singh) gk Judge 3