C.W.P. No.4875 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.4875 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 05, 2009 Smt. Savitri Devi .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.K. Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The husband of the petitioner was working as Boiler Attendant in the Meham Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent Mill') since 30.11.1991. Unfortunately, he died on 17.6.2001 while in service. The petitioner, a widow of the deceased employee, made a request for compassionate appointment in the respondent Mill. Vide order dated 2.2.2002 (Annexure P2), the petitioner was appointed as Manufacturing Collie on seasonal permanent basis. The petitioner was not satisfied with the said appointment. She made a representation that she should be given appointment as permanent worker. Thereafter she filed CWP No.17121 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of on 31.10.2003 with a direction to the respondent Mill to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner. By the impugned letter dated 17.12.2003 (Annexure P7), the said representation was rejected by the respondent Mill while observing that the respondent Mill appoints most of the workers on seasonal permanent basis, as the C.W.P. No.4875 of 2007 -2- respondent Mill is a seasonal industry. It has been further averred that all the seasonal permanent employees got retainer-ship allowance for the off season period. Only a small staff is kept during the off season for maintenance and repairs of the machinery etc. and for administrative work. It has been stated that no post of permanent nature was vacant on which the petitioner could have been given appointment. In the year 2006, again the petitioner filed a representation for giving her permanent employment. In reply to the said representation, it was stated that no post of Peon or other permanent post, on which the petitioner could be considered, was lying vacant. After the said reply given on 10.10.2006, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2007. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the writ petition as well as the written statement filed by respondent No.3, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition and issue the direction to respondent No.3 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Peon or its equivalent permanent post on regular basis. The petitioner has no legal right to get herself appointed as a Peon particularly when no post of permanent nature is available. The petitioner has already been appointed as Manufacturing Coolie on seasonal permanent basis and is also being paid retainer-ship allowance for the off season period. Therefore, she has already been given the suitable appointment on compassionate ground. Thus, in my opinion, no further direction is required to be issued in the instant case. Dismissed. May 05, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE