CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7925 OF 2007 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: February 15, 2008 Parties Name Ashok Kumar ..PETITIONER VERSUS Deputy Commissioner Office (S.K.Branch) and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. D.K.Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. Father of the petitioner died in harness on February 7, 2006. Petitioner is seeking appointment in service, by placing reliance upon the provisions of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (in short 2005 Rules). It is not in dispute that before filing this writ petition, the petitioner came to this Court by filing CWP No. 565 of 2007, which was disposed of on January 16, 2007, by issuing directions to the respondents to decide application of the petitioner as per law. Thereafter, vide order dated April 26, 2007 (Annexure P-1), claim of the petitioner for appointment was rejected. However, family of the deceased Government employee was held entitled to the financial assistance as per provisions of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7925 OF 2007 -2 Employees Rules, 2006 (in short 2006 Rules). Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the provisions of 2006 Rules cannot be made applicable to the petitioner and his case requires to be considered in view of the provisions of 2005 Rules. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the petitioner was noticed by this Court on May 24, 2007: “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the father of the petitioner who was working as a Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Yamunanagar had expired on 7.2.2006, i.e., prior to coming into force of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, therefore, the case of the petitioner is covered by the earlier policy of 2005, according to which the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground.” Facts are not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that 2006 Rules came into existence on August 1, 2006. Father of the petitioner died on February 7, 2006. Admittedly, at that time provisions of 2005 Rules were in vogue. In view of the admitted position, as referred to above, we feel that the case of the petitioner is supposed to be considered under the Rules, which were applicable at the time of death of his father. This has been so held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2007 (3) R.S.J. 121. Para No. 5 of that judgment is reproduced as under: CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7925 OF 2007 -3 “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.” Similar is the ratio of judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Amarjit Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2007(1) S.L.R. 251. In view of the facts, mentioned above, we dispose of this writ petition and direct the respondents to consider case of the petitioner for ex- gratia benefits, by giving him appointment or financial assistance, as per provisions of 2005 Rules. If any post, out of 5% posts reserved for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee was available at the relevant time, the petitioner be adjusted accordingly, otherwise, his case be considered for grant of financial assistance. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( Jaswant Singh) February 15, 2008. Judge DKC