LALITA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of fact and are involved in this Civil Writ Petition as well as Civil Writ Petition No. 17209 of 2006 titled Ashish Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, No. 20592 of 2006 titled Surender Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1446 of 2007 titled Krishna Devi v. State of Haryana and others, No. 3510 of 2007 titled Yash Pal v. State of another, No. 4352 of 2007 titled Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, No. 5413 of 2007 titled Hamender v. State of Haryana and another, No. 5971 of 2007 titled Vikas Jakhar v. State of Haryana and others, No. 7595 of 2007, titled Rajbala v. State of Haryana and others, No. 10918 of 2007 titled Smt. Savitri Devi v. State of Haryana and others, 11697 of 2007 titled Mukesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, No. 12080 of 2007 titled Parmod Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, No. 12996 of 2007 titled Luna Ram v. State of Haryana and others, No. 13125 of 2007 titled Vinod Kumar and another v. State of Haryana and others,No. 15237 of 2007, titled Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, No. 16933 of 2007 titled Surinder v. State of Haryana and others, No. 17420 of 2007 titled Abhay Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others, No. 18371 of 2007 titled Bhateri v. State of Haryana and others, No. 5025 of 2008, titled Raj Kumari v. State of Haryana and others, No. 9062 of 2008 titled Murti Devi v. State of Haryana and others, No. 9795 of 2008 titled Purni Devi v. State of Haryana and others, No. 9903 of 2008 titled Virender Singh v. State of Haryana and another and No. 10003 of 2008 titled. Smt. Rajpati v. State of Haryana and another, so all these petitions are being taken up together for disposal, with the consent of counsel for the parties. However, facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 6890 of 2007.

(2.) The petitioner filed the instant Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing, the respondents to grant her compassionate financial assistance of Rs. 5 Lacs instead of Rs. 2.5 lacs and in the alternative to consider her claim for compassionate appointment.

(3.) The necessary facts, as culled out from the pleadings of the parties, are epitomised as under :