IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP.NO.10010 of 2007 DATE OF ORDER: 6.2.2008 Jogindro Kaur & Another ....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. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. JASBIR SINGH,J (ORAL) Husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, who was working as an ASI in the Police Department of State of Haryana, died in harness on 26.5.2004. The State of Haryana has framed the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules 2003 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Rules”) to give ex- gratia benefits to the dependents of deceased government employees. It is not in dispute that as per the provisions of above said rules, petitioner No.2 was eligible to get appointment in service, against a suitable post, on compassionate basis. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was eligible to get Class IV post in the year 2004. Taking note of the provisions of above said Rules, petitioners moved an application to get appointment and in response thereto, they received letter dated 6.5.2005 (Annexure P.3), the contents of which reads thus: “You are hereby intimated that if your son Mr. Ranku Kumar has passed 10+2 exam then you may apply for Govt job under above said scheme for him. In this regard, your reply must reach in this office within seven days. As per Haryana Govt instructions, the dependent can apply for Govt job/compassionate financial assitance of Rs.2.5 Lacs in CWP.NO.10010 of 2007 #2# place of Govt job within three years i.e from the date of death of the Govt employee.” Petitioners replied that the petitioner No.2 be appointed as a Constable. In response to their request, vide letter dated 14.6.2005 (P.4), it was intimated that requisite educational qualification, to get that post, is 10+2 and as petitioner No.2 was not having that qualification that request cannot be accepted. Option was asked as to whether petitioner No.2 was ready to accept a Class IV post. In the mean time, new Rules came into existence and vide letter dated 28.8.2006 (P.5), offer was given to the petitioners to opt for lump sum ex-gratia payment or monthly financial assistance as per the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred as “the new Rules”). In response to that letter, petitioner No.1 wrote a letter to the respondents stating that she had not opted for financial assistance, rather she prayed that appointment be given to his son, who was studying in 10+2 at that time. She further stated that she will again apply on passing the above said examination by his son. Thereafter also, offer was made to the petitioners to get financial assistance. They opted to the contrary and vide letter dated 23.12.2006 (P.9), application was made by petitioner No.2 that as he has acquired the requisite qualification, he be appointed against the post of Constable. In response thereto, vide letter dated 29.1.2007 (P.10), petitioners were informed that employment cannot be offered to petitioner No.2 and they can claim financial assistance. Hence this writ petition. Counsel for the parties heard. After hearing counsel for the parties, we feel that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is not in dispute that as per 2003 Rules, dependents of the deceased government employees were eligible to get, either appointment in service or financial assistance. Petitioners opted for appointment in service on compassionate basis and vide letter dated 6.5.2005 (P.3), they were intimated that at that time petitioner No.2 was not eligible to get post of Constable and he could move an application to get that post on completion of 10+2 examination, within a period of three years. As per Rules also to get compassionate appointment, application CWP.NO.10010 of 2007 #3# moved by dependents of the deceased government employees, are to be kept alive for a period of three years. In this case, we feel that as per the Rules, petitioner No.2 was entitled to get benefit of the provisions of 2003 Rules. It has also been so held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others-2007 (3) RSJ-121, while dealing with similar controversy, it was 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.” At the time of hearing on 10.1.2008, following order was recorded by this Court: “At the outset, Shri Sandhawalia states that his client is ready to accept Class-IV post, which was earlier offered to him. We feel that the offer made is very genuine and needs consideration. Shri Sandhu seeks adjournment to get instructions. On request adjourned to 23.1.2008.” In response to offer given by Shri Sandhawalia as recorded above, Shri Rathee has put on record copy of the communication received by the Advocate General's office from the Superintendent of Police, Telecommunication, Haryana, wherein it has been stated in view of the provisions of the new Rules, it is not possible to offer any appointment to the petitioner. We feel that in view of the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the stand taken by the State Government is absolutely unjustified. As has been stated earlier, petitioners are entitled to get benefit under 2003 Rules and as per those Rules, petitioner No.2 is entitled to get appointment in service. In view of the facts mentioned above, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to offer suitable post to petitioner No.2 CWP.NO.10010 of 2007 #4# as per his qualification keeping in view the provisions of 2003 Rules. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE February 06, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE