SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 16.09.2008 (Annexure P-4) whereby his request for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner was appointed with the respondent department as Cook who expired on 14.11995 while he was in service. The mother of the petitioner requested the respondent department to reserve a post of Class-IV for the petitioner as he was 6 years old at that time. The petitioner attained majority in the year 2008 and claimed compassionate appointment but his claim was rejected and that is why he is before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly accepted that the petitioner now can not claim compassionate appointment in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Sima Banerjee, passed in Civil Appeal No.251 of 2017, decided on 10.01.2017. However, he claims that he would have to be given the benefit of ex-gratia compensation in terms of the 2006 policy.