IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.NO.16274 of 2007 DATE OF ORDER: 4.2.2008 Mohit Kumar ....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. Ravi Verma, Advocate. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl.A.G, Haryana. JASBIR SINGH,J (ORAL) Reply filed in Court, which is taken on record. By filing this writ petition the petitioner's prayer is to quash order dated 28.2.2007 (P.4) vide which claim of the petitioner to get appointment in service, on compassionate basis was rejected. It is an admitted fact that father of the petitioner died in harness on 16.9.2003. Taking note of the provisions of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, the petitioner applied to get appointment in state service. That prayer was rejected vide order Annexure P.4 by stating that in the mean time new rules had been framed under which dependents of the deceased government employees can get financial assistance only. When notice of motion was issued on 18.10.2007, following contentions of counsel for the petitioner were noticed by this Court: “Father of the petitioner died in harness on 16.09.2003. Petitioner, thereafter, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. Initially, his request was accepted, however, subsequent thereto, it was rejected vide letter dated 28.2.2007 (Annexure P-4). Counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others-2007 (3) RSJ- 121, to contend that petitioner's case is required to be considered in terms of the policy, which was prevalent at the time when his father died i.e on 16.9.2003.” C.W.P.NO.16274 of 2007 #2# In the judgment referred to above, Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dealing with similar controversy has 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.” Counsel for the respondent-State has failed to show anything to the contrary. In view of the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we allow this writ petition, set aside Annexure P.4 and direct the authorities to reconsider case of the petitioner keeping in view the policy, which was in existence at the time when father of the petitioner had died. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE February 04, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE