IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13315 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 18, 2009 Rajinder Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS U.T. Administration, Chandigarh & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - None for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks direction to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. It has been brought out from the petition that father of the petitioner namely, Devta, had been working as Beldar with the respondents since 2.3.1983. He expired on 10.7.2004 while in service. The petitioner applied for the post of Peon on 21.9.2004 on compassionate grounds. The case of the petitioner was required to be considered by a Common Committee on compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner was invited CWP No.13315 of 2007 [2] to come during the proceedings. The petitioner appeared before the Committee on both the occasions, however, the petitioner has not been appointed. Subsequently, even a legal notice was served. Because the petitioner was not appointed, he has been constrained to approach this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that case of the petitioner was duly considered under the Scheme made applicable to all the employees. The Scheme itself has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that a list is maintained for the purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds for three years. If a person makes it within ceiling of 5% against regular vacancies, the person is given appointment. The Scheme is made applicable without any discrimination. The case of the petitioner was kept on the list for three years, however, the turn of the petitioner did not come and hence the petitioner could not be appointed. I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the respondents and the pleadings in the petition. It is not disputed on behalf of the petitioner that case of the petitioner, indeed, was considered under the Scheme for compassionate appointment. The name of the petitioner was maintained for three years, however, he could not CWP No.13315 of 2007 [3] make it within the quota prescribed for appointment on compassionate ground. The Scheme itself has not been challenged. I have also considered the scope of right of a person for appointment on compassionate ground. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Managing Director, MMTC Ltd. New Delhi & Another vs. Pramoda Dei @ Nayak, (1997) 11 SCC 390 has considered the issue. The following needs to be noticed from Para 4 thereof:- “4. Shri Harish Salve, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that under Rule 18 a discretion has been given to the Chairman/Director (Personnel) in the matter of appointment of a direct dependant of a regular employee of MMTC who dies in harness or is permanently disabled while in the service of MMTC and that the High Court was not justified in issuing a writ directing the appellants to give a rehabilitation appointment to the respondent and all that could be done was that the High Court would have directed the competent authority to consider the matter of giving rehabilitation appointment to the respondent. In support of the said submission, Shri Salve has invited our attention to the recent decision of this Court in LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambedkar, (1994) 2 SCC 718 wherein this Court was considering the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 providing for appointment on compassionate grounds and it was held that the Court should not have directed appointment on compassionate grounds that it could have merely directed consideration of the claim of the dependant of the deceased employee. We find considerable merit in the said submission of Shri Salve. In our opinion, Rule 18 of the Rules confers a discretion on the Chairman/Director (Personnel) to appoint a direct dependant of a regular employee who dies in harness or is permanently disabled while in the service. It is no doubt true that this discretion is not an unfettered discretion and has to be exercised reasonably after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that rehabilitation appointment has to be given in all cases where it becomes due because of death of an employee in harness or by his permanent disability and it can be refused only in certain circumstances as indicated by the High Court. In our opinion, the discretion of the competent authority cannot be thus fettered. As pointed out by this Court, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious CWP No.13315 of 2007 [4] family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment and that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment (See; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138). Ineligibility, incapacity or unsuitability of the person seeking employment are no doubt relevant considerations but they cannot be regarded as exhaustive.....” Considering the law on the issue, as noticed above, and reading it in the context of the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the case of the petitioner has been considered under the Scheme floated for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been ignored for appointment under the Scheme for illegal reasons. In view of the above, no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 18, 2009 JUDGE avin