SAWROOP CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 01.07.2015, I had reserved the matter pertaining to quashing of the order dated 14.03.2005, Annexure P-6, whereby, the case of the petitioner for employment under ex-gratia scheme has been rejected on the premise that there is no provision to provide employment/financial assistance to the dependent of invalid/disabled government employee as per the Haryana Compassionate Assistance. The petitioner is stated to have filed an affidavit dated 18.02.2003 exercising option for compassionate appointment in pursuance to the policy dated 23.11.1992, Annexure P-5 and in support of his contention relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Krishna Kumari v. State of Haryana and others, 2012 167 PunLR 383 to contend that the case of the petitioner would be covered under 1991 policy and not under 2000 policy as indicated in the impugned order.

(2.) The aforementioned contention has been contested by the State on the ground that as per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar, 2010 11 SCC 661, in case the earlier policy scheme has been abolished and new scheme has been promulgated, the claim under previous policy of the person ceases to exist.

(3.) While going through the facts of the case, I have come across the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, 2014 13 SCC 583. On going through the ratio decidendi culled out in paragraph Nos. 14 to 17 of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Krishna Kumari's case has been over ruled by "implication". For the sake Of brevity, the operative part of the judgment is extracted herein below:--