Judgment J. S. Khehar, J. 1. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 21.12.1996. On account of the death of his father, the petitioner was allowed compassionate appointment as a Chowkidar under the ex gratia scheme on 20.1.2003. 2. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner claims appointment against the post of Clerk in terms of the policy instructions dated 8.5.1995 (Annexure P4 ). It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that under the ex gratia scheme, read with policy instructions dated 8.5.1995 (Annexure P4), the petitioner is entitled to appointment, against a post which is one step lower than the post occupied by the father of the petitioner, at the time of his death. 3. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The issue in hand was adjudicated upon by this Court in Rajiv Deswal V. State of Haryana (CWP no.8487 of 1998 decided on 3.11.1998 ). The decision rendered in Rajiv deswals case was, however impugned by the State Government before the apex Court through a petition for special leave to appeal (Civil) bearing no.778 of 1999, wherein the Supreme Court passed the following order:- "we have heard learned counsel for the parties. The High Court has interpreted the clause which reads as under:- "further the compassionate employment being offered shall be at least one step lower than that of the deceased employee except where the deceased employee was working at the lowest level in the government. " 4 According to the High Court, this clause means that an applicant has a right to be considered for appointment to a post which is only one step below the one which was held by the deceased employee. 5. In our opinion, this interpretation of the said clause by the High Court is erroneous. This clause means that the offer of appointment to the deceased employees dependent is not to be on a post equivalent to the one which was held by the deceased employee but should be on a lower post by at least one step. Therefore, in the present case when the deceased employee was Deputy Superintendent of police, the offering of the post of A. S. I. was not incorrect. Therefore, in the present case when the deceased employee was Deputy Superintendent of police, the offering of the post of A. S. I. was not incorrect. However, as the High Court has found that four posts of inspectors were lying vacant to which the respondent could have been appointed we do not wish to interfere in this case. 6. Special leave petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. In view of the determination rendered by the Apex Court in the decision extracted hereinabove, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed.