IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 945 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.9.2009. The State of Haryana and others ......Appellants Vs. Lajawati widow of late Sh.Amar Chand Head Constable. ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge directing grant of compassionate assistance to the writ petitioner in terms of Policy of the State of Haryana of the year 2006. 2. Late Amar Chand, Head Constable, husband of the respondent, died on 3.8.2002 in harness. Respondent applied for compassionate appointment on 29.11.2002 for her son, who was minor. Her application was rejected. Thereafter, she again applied in terms of New Policy which envisaged grant of assistance to the tune of Rs.2.50 lakh where compassionate appointment was not given. That application was rejected. Thereafter, again application was made in terms of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employee Rules, 2006, which applied to all pending cases. Aggrieved by the denial of relief, the respondent filed a writ petition. 3. The writ petition was contested on the ground that respondent LPA No. 945 of 2009 [2] had failed to give option for financial assistance. Once the compassionate appointment, for which prayer was made, was not possible, in absence of option, compassionate assistance could not be granted to the respondent. 4. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition following Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Raj Kumari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.and others 2008(4) RSJ 765 holding that since 2006 Rules applied to all pending cases, an opportunity to exercise option has to be given to the aggrieved party. The respondent had exercised option, though beyond time given in the earlier policy. Learned Single Judge directed that necessary benefit as per the policy be given to the respondent within two months from the date of receipt of copy of that order. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. It is not in dispute that judgment of Division Bench in Raj Kumari (supra) is applicable to the respondent. This being the position, no ground is made out to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) September 25, 2009 JUDGE raghav