Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Communication dated 9.5.2006, Annexure P-10, whereby the claim of the petitioner for sum of Rs. 5 lacs as ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance, was declined and instead Rs. 2.5 lacs towards financial assistance was offered. 2. Shri Nanak Chand, husband of the petitioner, was appointed as Helper Grade-II with the respondent-Department on 24.12.1991. Nanak Chand died on 8.12.2000 leaving behind his wife, present petitioner, three daughters and a son. After the death of her husband, the petitioner moved an application for appointment of his son Krishan on compassionate ground. On 21.5.2003, a communication was addressed to the petitioner so as to submit an option, either for compassionate appointment or compassionate financial assistance of Rs. 2.5 lacs. The petitioner submitted an offer for compassionate appointment. It was on 27.5.2005, the petitioner was informed that the seniority list of ex-gratia case has been maintained and the case of the petitioner would be dealt with strictly as per the seniority. It is also pointed out that if the case is not finalized within a period of 3 years from the date of issuance of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the `2003-Rules) or within three years from the date of death of the employee, the case of the petitioner would be considered for financial assistance of Rs. 2.5 lacs. Such 2003 Rules have been framed by the State Government in terms of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 3. It was on 27.3.2006, vide Annexure P-7, the petitioner was informed that as per the seniority list, the turn of the petitioner for appointment of compassionate ground cannot be finalized and, therefore, the option was sought for availing the facility of compassionate financial assistance of Rs. 2.5 lacs. The petitioner made representation to claim financial assistance of Rs. 5 lacs in terms of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the `2005-Rules). It is the said representation which has been declined by the respondents on 9.5.2006, vide Annexure P-10. 4. 2.5 lacs. The petitioner made representation to claim financial assistance of Rs. 5 lacs in terms of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the `2005-Rules). It is the said representation which has been declined by the respondents on 9.5.2006, vide Annexure P-10. 4. A perusal of the communication dated 27.3.2006, Annexure P-7 would show that the seniority list for making compassionate appointment was to remain valid till 31.3.2006, but the case of the appointment of Krishan Kumar on compassionate ground could not be finalized due to non availability of the post for the purpose. Therefore, option was to be given in terms of Rule 6.1 (c) of the 2003 Rules for availing financial assistance of Rs. 2.5 lacs. It is no doubt true that when the said letter was issued, the 2005 Rules have come in force on 18.11.2005. But Rule 19 (2) of the 2005 Rules provides that pending cases have to be dealt with in terms of the Rules which are applicable on the date of commencement of the 2005 Rules. Meaning thereby, the case of financial assistance to the petitioner has to be regulated by 2003 Rules as such Rules were available on 18.11.2005 when the 2005 Rules came into force. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then argued that the provisions of Rule 19 (2) of the 2005 Rules are discriminatory as two similar situated candidates can be dealt with in discriminatory manner. However, we do not find any merit in the said argument as well. In terms of Rule 6 of the 2003 Rules, the respondents are required to maintain the seniority list for appointment on compassionate ground. Such list is to remain valid for a period of 3 years as well. Therefore, if a particular candidate is not able to be appointed on compassionate ground for lack of vacancy, then he has to be offered ex-gratia financial assistance. Therefore, there is no possibility of discrimination, except to the extent that the person who ranks senior in seniority list will be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground, whereas the persons lower in the list may get financial assistance. 6. Since the benefits have to be given in terms of the Rules notified, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim higher compensation on the ground that Rule 19 (2) of the 2005 Rules is discriminatory. 6. Since the benefits have to be given in terms of the Rules notified, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim higher compensation on the ground that Rule 19 (2) of the 2005 Rules is discriminatory. 7. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed.