The central legal point established in the judgment is that the 2003 Rules did not deal with invalid/disabled government employees, and the 23.11.1992 policy continued to be valid and subsisting until it was withdrawn in 2006.

S.J. Vazifdar, J.

This petition comes before us by way of a reference. The learned single Judge had heard the matter and reserved the judgment. Subsequently, as stated by the learned Judge in the reference order, he came across the judgment of the Supreme Court in MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 583. The learned Judge found that the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Krishna Kumari vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) SCT 736 has been overruled by implication. The learned Judge stated that the matter, therefore, required consideration by a larger Bench or by a Coordinate Bench of Krishna Kumari’s case on the following question of law:

“Whether the Government employee who seeks compassionate appointment would be governed by rules/policy in operation at the time of death of an employee or the rules/policy applicable on the date when his case would be considered by the appropriate authority?”

2. We must, at the outset, state that it was not necessary for the learned Judge to have referred the matter to a larger Bench. The matter could have been decided by the learned Judge by following the doctrine of precedents.

3. Further, it is not necessary in this matter to consider the question of law framed by the learned Judge. As the matter has been argued substantially before us, we do not deem it appropriate to return the reference. We have instead decided the matter ourselves. Returning the reference would have burdened the parties with costs which is not desirable especially in a matter such as this which involves compassionate appointment.

4. The petitioner’s father, who was born on 15.05.1959, was employed as Beldar, which is a Class-IV post, on regular basis in the office of Executive Engineer, Mohindergarh Canal, up to 10.05.2001. The petitioner’s father unfortunately took ill. A medical report dated 10.05.2001 of the Special Medical Board, Pt. B.D. Sharma, PGI, Rohtak, certified that the petitioner’s father was “completely and permanently incapacitated for further service in the Department M/Garh Canal W/S Division as Beldar on account of disability 75% (Seventy Five)”. The certificate states that the petitioner’s father was unfit for further service in the said post and in the said department. It is further certified that the incapacity was not caused due to any irregular or intemperate habits. Thus, with effect from 14.05.2001, the petitioner’s father was declared to be unfit in respect of the said post. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondents for exgratia appointment on compassionate ground.

5. The respondents’ General Manager (Project), Irrigation Department, called upon the petitioner to make an option for compassionate appointment or for exgratia grant. The petitioner was called upon to exercise the option in the form of an affidavit. The letter erroneously refers to the exgratia appointment in the case of a deceased employee.

6. The petitioner accordingly filed an affidavit exercising his option to get employment under the Haryana Government exgratia scheme.

7. We will now refer to the documents/notices issued by the respondents from time to time regarding the exgratia facilities.

8. A circular dated 23.11.1992 insofar as it is relevant reads as under:

“Subject: Facilities to the families of the employees rendered unfit during service with regard to providing appointment to the dependents of the employees who have been rendered blind or unfit.

Sir,

I have been directed on the aforesaid subject to draw your attention to the Haryana Government notification No. 16/1/916 G.S.II, dated 22.02.1991 and to say that the Government after reconsideration has taken this decision, that after the date of issuance of this letter that only one of the dependents out of the dependents of the family of regular employee, who has been rendered blind or unfit during service, will be given appointment.

2. It is clarified that the employees who are rendered unfit have to