IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 11149 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.7.2009. Amanpreet Kaur --Petitioner Versus Union of India and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 24.12.2007 (Annexure P-6), whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. It is admitted position that the father of the petitioner, who was serving as constable in the Chandigarh Police died on 11.10.1998. The petitioner has disclosed her date of birth as 8.8.1989. It seems that the grandfather of the petitioner applied to the respondents for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. In response to the aforesaid application the grandfather of the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 24.3.1999 that the application be made when his grand daughter clears the matriculation and also attain the age of 18 years. On attaining the age of 18 years the petitioner again applied for compassionate appointment. The claim of the petitioner has now been rejected vide the impugned order. It is stated in the impugned order that at the time of the death of the father of the petitioner under the policy for compassionate appointment there was no period prescribed nor there was any limit of such compassionate appointment. However, subsequently the State Govt. has changed its policy CWP. No. 11149 of 2009 -2- and fixed 5% quota for compassionate appointment provided the application is made within three years of the death of the Govt. employee. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has forcefully argued that petitioner is governed by the policy in vogue at the time of the death of the deceased employee and thus the petitioner's claim should not have been rejected on the ground of change of policy. Admittedly at the time of death of petitioner's father, she was minor and not eligible for Govt. appointment. When she became major the Govt. Policy had undergone change. Thus, it is the policy in operation at the time petitioner acquired eligibility which becomes applicable. Even if, the contention of the petitioner is accepted the fact remains that the compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. The very object and purpose of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to overcome the immediate financial needs. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1998. It is more than 11 years now. The petitioner was admittedly minor at the time of death of her father and was only 9 years of age. At this belated stage no indulgence can be shown for compassionate appointment as per the settled legal position in (2006) Supreme Court Cases 766 and 2008 AIR SCW 3642. No merit, petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 28.7.2009 lucky