SAHIB KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is claiming that she should be given compassionate appointment since her husband was retired on medical ground and later on expired. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that a Division Bench of this Court on 20.12.2005 allowed an identical matter, bearing CWP No. 19693 of 2004 Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana, in the following terms:

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents has argued that as per Rule 19 of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, the instructions issued by the Haryana Government from time to time in respect of providing financial assistance and appointments under ex -gratia scheme were repealed. Rule 19 of the said Rules reads as follows:

(3.) I find that the case in Kuldip Kumar (supra) related to ex -gratia appointment on account of death and was decided on the basis that the petitioner therein was not a dependent. As regards reliance on Rule 19 (supra), this fact was considered by the Division Bench in Sushil Kumar's case (supra) in the following terms: