ROSHNI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has prayed to consider the claim of her son for appointment under ex-gratia as respondent No.2 had rejected the claim of her son for appointment vide order dated 23.1.2009 (P-12).

(2.) In the affidavit filed by the Director General of Police, Haryana it has been accepted that out of 336 dependents of police officers (who died in service) were given job on the death of their fathers in service 145 were such who were appointed beyond the period of 3 years. In the circumstances, both the grounds on which appointment was denied to the petitioner's son have been found to be wrong. However in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Sima Banerjee passed in Civil Appeal No. 251 of 2017 decided on 10.01.2017 it would not be possible for the Court to direct the respondents to grant a job to the petitioner's son now, 21 years after the death of his father.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has accepted this position. He then argued that once it has to be held that the case of the petitioner's son was rejected on wrong grounds, it must be deemed to have been pending till the Rules of 2006 came into operation and consequently even if no appointment can be offered to the petitioner's son yet the respondents are bound to consider his case for financial assistance as per the Rules of 2006.