1. The husband of the petitioner was engaged as Pharmacist in the year 1991. His status as an ad hoc employee continued till February, 2003, when he died after a massive heart attack. The petitioner-wife of the deceased has sought her appointment on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994. Her contention is that she is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds as her husband died in harness. It is stated that she applied to the respondents for considering her case for being appointed on Compassionate grounds and a recommendation was also made by the Block Medical Officer and the Chief Medical Officer as well as by the Director Health Services to the authority concerned. 2. Grievances of the petitioner is that her case has been rejected by the Administrative Department on the ground that her husband was not a permanent employee of the State Government and, as such, she cannot claim the benefit under SRO 43. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Petition admitted. 3. The only question to be determined in this case is as to whether the family member of a deceased Government employee who dies in harness without assuming the permanent status in the service, is eligible for seeking appointment on compassionate basis. The expression used in the relevant Rules connote that the government employee who dies in harness, his family member can seek appointment under SRO 43 of 1994. The definition of government employee is not restrictive in nature but exhaustive. It connotes all categories of employees both permanent/temporary employees and does not confine itself only to those employees who are appointed permanently in service. 4. I am fortified in my view with a judgment of this Court dated 24.3.2005 passed in case titled Sohan Lal v. State Forest Corporation & Ors in SWP No.1783/2003. In the aforementioned case, it has been observed that even an adhoc/temporary employee is covered by the definition of "Government employee". After expressing the said view, reliance was placed on another judgment of this Court reported as Sureksha Rani v. State of J&K, 1999 KLJ 24, wherein it was observed as under: "In my opinion SRO 43 of 1994 merely talks of a person who is a Government employee. It is not for the benefit of regular employees alone. After expressing the said view, reliance was placed on another judgment of this Court reported as Sureksha Rani v. State of J&K, 1999 KLJ 24, wherein it was observed as under: "In my opinion SRO 43 of 1994 merely talks of a person who is a Government employee. It is not for the benefit of regular employees alone. Petitioners husband was working on daily wages. He was performing duty in connection with affairs of State of Jammu and Kashmir. He would as such, be entitled to the benefit of rules contained in SRO 43 of 1994 referred to above." 5. Viewed thus, it can safely be stated that if a person having status of an adhoc employee dies in harness, his family member can seek appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the SRO referred above. 6. This petition, as such, is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds strictly in terms of the Rules governing the field subject to her qualification and eligibility. 7. Let this exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is served upon the respondents. Disposed of.