STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. SUMIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM no. 1590-LPA of 2016

(2.) The respondent made a claim for ex gratia appointment on account of death of his father in harness on 30.4.2002. His application was moved after he attained the age of majority on 29.3.2012. The prayer was rejected leading to the writ petition where the learned Single Judge while relying on Rule 18 which is extracted herebelow, held the respondent entitled to consideration and employment under the ex-gratia policy of 2003.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the impugned judgment states that Rule 18 has been mis-interpreted as it envisages relaxation in favour of an orphan upon demise of a Govt. employee but if the applicant was having other siblings he could not be construed to be an orphan to get the benefit under afore-extracted rule. Apart from this it has been contended that the claim would remain alive till one child has attained majority and this would imply that if any of the members of the family had attained the age of majority and not pressed for his claim of appointment, the same would lapse. Besides these two arguments another argument has been raised that case of the respondent could be considered, if at all, under the 2006 Rules.