RSA No.3762 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3762 of 2010 (O&M). Decided on: April 26, 2011. State of Haryana. .. Appellant VERSUS Ram Mehar. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Deepak Girhotra, DAG., Haryana. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) CM No.11144-C of 2010 There is delay of 42 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. Misc. application stands allowed. RSA No.3762 of 2010 Suit of the plaintiff-respondent for mandatory injunction for grant of employment under Ex-gratia scheme on account of 100 per cent disability of the father of the plaintiff- . . . 1 RSA No.3762 of 2010 (O&M) respondent was dismissed by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and directed the defendant-appellant-State to reconsider the matter of the plaintiff and decide within a period of three months, the claim of plaintiff regarding entitlement of benefits under Ex-gratia scheme. Counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the subject matter regarding the employment of the plaintiff under Ex-gratia scheme at a particular point of time is not the subject matter of adjudication by a larger Bench, as such, the State should be given time to adjudicate the matter in accordance with decision. I have heard the counsel for the appellant, at length and I am of the opinion that the State is required to consider the entitlement of the plaintiff-respondent on compassionate grounds under Ex-gratia scheme existing at the time of the date of retirement of his father Puran Singh who had allegedly suffered 100 per cent disability. It has been left open to the State authorities to consider the claim in context to the scheme. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal warranting interference in the reasonable directions given by the lower appellate Court. Dismissed. At this stage, it has been informed that the decision has already been taken by the State on 11.10.2010, rejecting the claim of the plaintiff-respondent. . . . 2 RSA No.3762 of 2010 (O&M) In view of said circumstance, also there is no ground for interference. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE April 26, 2011. rka . . . 3