COCP No.1650 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1650 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 6, 2009. Neelam Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Shri Samir Mathur & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri P.K. Sachdev Advocate, for the petitioners. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): As per the averments made in this petition, husband of petitioner No.1 died on 26.7.2002, leaving behind her and other petitioners as his LRs. Petitioner No.1, being widow, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in September 2002, however, her name was kept in the waiting list. In the meantime, a policy known as the “Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of the Deceased Government Employees, Rules 2003” came, under which a provision of payment of Rs.2.50 lacs was made, if after the expiry of the period of three years one does not get appointment on compassionate grounds. According to the petitioner, another policy came into being, according to which she was entitled to Rs.5 lacs instead of Rs.2.5 lacs. However, the petitioner declined the offer of Rs.2.5 lacs to be paid to her and filed CWP No.12230 of 2008 for redressal of her grievance. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this court vide judgment dated 22.8.2008 in terms of CWP No.8844 of 2007 whereby the case of the petitioner was directed to be considered afresh in COCP No.1650 of 2009 -: 2 :- the light of instructions/rules applicable at the time of death of the government employee. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the aforesaid directions, respondents have failed to consider the case of the petitioner. The question as to which rules would be applicable for granting compassionate appointment to a dependent of the employee, which were applicable on the date of invalidation/death of such an employee or date of consideration of the case of such a dependent of the employee, has been referred to a larger Bench, in CWP No.5335 of 2009, vide order dated 2.4.2009. In view of the aforesaid fact, at this stage, it cannot be said that the respondents have disobeyed the order passed by this Court, therefore, I am not inclined to take cognizance of this petition. Dismissed. November 6, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge