State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rani Devi & Anr on 15 July, 1996
3. Learned standing counsel has submitted that no appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules can be given to the petitioner in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi, JT 1996 (6) SC 646. He has invited our attention to paragraph 8 of the said judgment in which it has been held that the casual or ad hoc appointee cannot be given benefit of the G.O. dated 31.10.1985. I have carefully perused the aforesaid decision and, in my opinion, it is distinguishable. The petitioner's husband was not a purely casual or ad hoc employee. He was a temporary appointee who had worked against a substantive vacancy from 18.4.1987 and had worked for more than 11 years. The decision of the Supreme Court applied to a case of a casual or ad hoc appointee, e.g., a person appointed for a period of one month who died after 20 days of appointment. In case of such a casual appointee, obviously the benefit of Dying-in-Harness Rules cannot be given. Hence the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be applied in this case as the petitioner's husband worked for over 11 years.