IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5121 of 2007 Date of Decision: 7.1.2008 Jasbir Pal Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Shri K.L.Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner Shri M.S.Sindhu, D.A.G. Haryana for the respondents Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Father of the petitioner died, while in service, on 10.3.2006. The petitioner, by placing reliance upon the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (in short, the rules 2005), claimed that he be appointed on a suitable post. In tune to the rules, referred to above, his case was considered and recommended for appointment. However, the competent authority, vide order dated 15.6.2007 (Annexure R1), rejected his prayer for appointment with an observation that as per Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, the petitioner was entitled to get only the financial assistance. His case, admittedly, was not considered under the rules 2005. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer that the authorities be directed to consider his case under the rules 2005 and to say so he has placed reliance upon judgment of Civil Writ Petition No.5121 of 2007 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2007(2) SCT 457. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are convinced that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by ratio of the judgment in Abhishek Kumar’s case (supra). In that case, while deciding similar controversy, it was observed thus:- “4. The High Court relying on and on the basis of the said Rule dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant directing the respondents to make the payment of ex gratia amount under the Rules. 5. 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.” It is apparent from the records that the post was in existence when case of the petitioner was recommended for appointment. In view of this, we dispose of this writ petition and direct the authority concerned to consider case of the petitioner afresh for appointment on compassionate 2 Civil Writ Petition No.5121 of 2007 grounds, on a suitable post, according to the rules 2005. Availability of the post/ vacancy will be considered at the time when father of the petitioner died. The petitioner’s claim be considered according to the list prepared by the authorities for the said purpose. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (Jasbir Singh) Judge January 07, 2008 (Jaswant Singh) gk Judge 3