Judgment Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. C.M. No. 1399 of 2010 Heard. Delay condoned for the reasons mentioned in the condonation application. LPA No. 494 of 2010 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.05.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner herein. In the said writ petition the action of the present appellants in rejecting the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner to the payment of compassionate allowance of Rs. 2.5 lacs was under challenge. 3. The brief facts that will be required to be noticed are as follows :- The father of the respondent/writ petitioner, after being discharged from army service, was appointed as a Security Guard in the establishment of the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind. He worked from May, 1990 till July, 1997 when he died. While in service he was regularized on 31.01.1996. After the death of his father the respondent/writ petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. As no appointment could be offered on account of nonavailability of vacancies the respondent/writ petitioner was offered financial assistance to the extent of Rs. 2.5 lacs in terms of the policy in force. However, the same was later recalled on the ground that the respondent/writ petitioners father had not completed three years of regular service. 4. Aggrieved the writ petition, in question, was filed. 5. The learned Single Judge of this Court relied on a Division Bench decision in the case of Smt. Kamlesh v. State of Haryana, 2006(4), SCT, 658 wherein the Division Bench had occasion to deal with a similar issue. Taking note of the interpretation provided by the Division Bench to Rule 3(d)(i) and (ii) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, the learned Single Judge reiterated the view of the Division Bench that compassionate appointment or allowance is not contingent on completion of three years of regular service by the deceased employee, as contended by the State. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed with the direction to pay the amount of Rs. 2.50 lacs to the respondent/writ petitioner within two months failing which it was directed that the amount, in question, will attract interest @ 8 per cent per annum. 6. Aggrieved by the said order the State is in appeal before us. 7. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed with the direction to pay the amount of Rs. 2.50 lacs to the respondent/writ petitioner within two months failing which it was directed that the amount, in question, will attract interest @ 8 per cent per annum. 6. Aggrieved by the said order the State is in appeal before us. 7. The provisions of Rule 3(d)(i) and (ii) which would be material for the purposes of deciding the issue in controversy in the appeal may be extracted below:- "3(d) Deceased Government Employee means a government employee : (i) appointed on regular basis, and not working on daily wages, casual, apprentice, work charged, adhoc, contractual or reemployment basis; (ii) who has served the Government for at least 3 years; (iii) who should not have crossed the age of 55 years." 8. Any scheme of compassionate appointment as may be framed by an employer being a beneficial scheme having a definite social object must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the object that is sought to be achieved. While under Rule 3(d)(i) a government employee on whose death compassionate appointment or allowance can be claimed, has to be a regular employee, there will be no justification to read the requirement of Rule 3(d)(ii) in the same manner, namely, that three years of service contemplated by the said sub-rule must be after regularization. An interpretation of the aforesaid two sub- clauses of Rule 3(d) to convey the meaning that while the deceased employee must be a regular employee, service rendered to the State in any capacity prior to his death will entitle the legal heirs to compassionate appointment or allowance, in our considered view, will further the object behind the scheme of compassionate appointment in the present case. We are, therefore, in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Division Bench in Smt. Kamleshs case (supra). We have also noticed that the said decision has attained finality in law as no appeal has been filed against the same. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal to warrant admission of the same. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.