BIRMATI Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash order dated 6.10.2006 (Annexure P/5), vide which, claim of the petitioner, to get appointment on compassionate basis, was rejected. Husband of the petitioner died on 18.7.2005. Admittedly, at that time, the rules known as the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules 2003 (in short 2003 rules), were in vogue. The petitioner's application to get compassionate appointment was rejected vide order, under challenge, on the ground that in the meantime, new rules have come into existence on 3.8.2006 and she may get financial benefit, as provided under those rules. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that it is not open to the respondents to consider her case under the new rules and she is entitled to get appointment on compassionate basis on the basis of 2003 rules. To say so, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2007(3) RSJ 121. We feel that argument raised is perfectly justified. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar's (supra), while dealing with a similar controversy observed thus:

(3.) DISPOSED of.