C.W.P.No.882 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.882 of 2008 Date of Decision : 21.01.2008 Manjit Sharma .....Petitioner versus State Bank of Patiala and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. In the present writ petition, the petitioner claims a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide him appointment on suitable post in accordance with his qualification, in terms of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground. The father of the petitioner Sh.Devi Dass died on 5.6.1995 while working as Armed Guard with the Chhaki Branch of the Bank at Pathankot. At that time, the petitioner was minor. The petitioner attained the age of majority in the year 1999 and qualified 10+2 examination in the year 2001 from the Punjab School Education Board. Thereafter, the petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground. Vide Annexures P-6 and P-7, the application for appointment on compassionate ground was forwarded to the higher Authorities of the Bank. Since no decision on the C.W.P.No.882 of 2008 2 claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was being taken, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1995 and the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking appointment on compassionate ground almost after 13 years of the death of his father. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments and also this Court has held that the appointment on compassionate ground is to meet out the immediate financial difficulties of the family. Almost after 13 years, it cannot be said that the family of the petitioner is in financial distress which may necessitate appointment on compassionate ground. The matter has been considered by us in “C.W.P. No.13472 of 2006, titled as Union of India Versus Tilak Raj and another, decided on 5.12.2007”, wherein it has been held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed after number of years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that though he may not have the right of appointment on compassionate ground, but he has a right to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The right of consideration is keeping in view to a right to hold a particular post. In view of the number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court, the petitioner cannot be appointed on compassionate ground after such a long lapse of time, therefore, we do not find that the petitioner has any vested right even for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground at this stage. C.W.P.No.882 of 2008 3 Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 21-01-2008 *mohinder