CWP No. 3718 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Case No: CWP No. 3718 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 03, 2010 PERVINDER KUMAR ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ETC. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present: Mr. N.C. Kinra Advocate with Mr. Harsh Kinra,, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** PERMOD KOHLI, J.(ORAL) Notice of motion to respondent No.1 only. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. Keeping in view the nature of controversy and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. One Prem Chand father of the petitioner serving as Naib Nazir on the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak. He died in harness on 14.03.1983. Widow of the deceased employee i.e. the mother of the present petitioner applied for her employment on compassionate ground. Her request was declined on the ground that an illiterate lady cannot be employed as Class IV. However the request of the petitioner's mother was forwarded to the Government of Haryana for employment in the Education or Health Department. Admittedly, the petitioner was 3 years aged at the time of death of his father as evident from the affidavit of petitioner's mother (Annexure P-3/1). It appears that when the CWP No. 3718 of 2010 -2- petitioner attained the age of majority, another application was made for the employment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. In the meantime, a dispute arose regarding date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the matriculation certificate. It is stated that in the matriculation certificate date of birth of the petitioner was reflected as 1.11.85 instead of 5.5.1980. The petitioner's case regarding his date of birth was finally settled by this Court in RSA No.3261/2005 decided on 08.05.2008. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected vide order dated 15.12.2009. The petitioner accordingly filed this petition challenging the communication and further prayer for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. It is admitted case of the parties that father of the petitioner died in the year 1983, when the petitioner was of 3 years age. After lapse of more than 25 years the petitioner cannot be granted appointment on compassionate grounds. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, 2006(3) SCT 598 has rejected the claim for compassionate appointment after lapse of 12 years and observed as under:- “11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought “compassion”, the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the CWP No. 3718 of 2010 -3- setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. It has also been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra & others 2008(2) SCT 669: - “16. Furthermore, about 12 years have passed. Appellant's son is aged about 20 years and daughter is aged about 16 years. Therefore, they have become major. Appellant herself would be aged about 38 years now. She cannot be given any appointment at this age.” The re-alternative plea of the petitioner is for financial help. At the time of the death of the employee, the Government policy dated 22.12.1970 was in operation. Under the said policy, certain benefits were conferred for the family of the deceased employee, who died in harness. The relevant conditions in the aforesaid policy are as under: “a). Ad hoc ex-gratia grants. The ex gratia grant to be given to the family of the deceased employee will be equivalent to ten (10 ) times the last monthly emoluments drawn by him subject minimum of Rs.5000/- and a maximum of Rs.15000/-. The grant will normally be given for assisting the members of the family resettling themselves and only in very hard cases for purposes like marriage of the children. b) Free Medical Aid. Free medical aid will be given to the family on the same basis as to pensioners except that facility will also be extended to minor children CWP No. 3718 of 2010 -4- of the employee. c) Free Educational Facilities. Free educational facilities will be provided to all children of the deceased employee for education upto the degree level.” It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that even the financial ex gratia financial help has not been made to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of ex gratia financial help in terms of the aforesaid policy within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon to the competent authority. March 03, 2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) naresh.k JUDGE