IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 16054 of 1993 Date of Decision: 1.2.2010. Bachan Mala --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondent no.1. Mr. Sanjeev, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Petitioner is mother of Satish Chand Jain, who was working in the office of Financial Commissioner, Haryana as a Clerk and died in harness on 15.4.1992. The deceased employee was in possession of the allotted Govt. Quarter bearing No. 2654-A, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh. It is stated that the petitioner and her family were dependent upon the late Govt. employee. The family included the petitioner, the mother of the deceased and younger brothers of the deceased Govt. employee. One of the brother of the deceased employee namely Anil Kumar submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 14.8.1992. The claim of the brother of the deceased employee for compassionate appointment was rejected vide communication dated 18.10.1993 (Annexure P-4/T). In the meantime, the respondents cancelled the allotment of the aforesaid Govt. quarter, allotted to the deceased employee. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the cancellation order and the appeal has also been dismissed. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming compassionate appointment for the minor CWP. No. 16054 of 1993 -2- son of the petitioner, brother of the deceased employee Satish Chand Jain and also to quash the order of the Estate Officer for eviction of the petitioner. More than 18 years have passed since the death of the deceased employee. At this belated stage no compassionate appointment can be granted. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra & others reported as 2008(2)SCT 669 has held that after lapse of considerable time no compassionate appointment can be granted. Following observations have been made:- “ 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.” As far the quashment of the order of eviction is concerned, a Govt. servant or the family of the deceased Govt. servant cannot retain the Govt. accommodation after the prescribed period. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner on this count itself. This petition is accordingly, dismissed. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the family pension has not been granted to the petitioner. In para 14 of the petition, petitioner has reserved the right to claim the interest and other benefits separately. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondents or seek any other remedy available under law. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 1.2.2010. lucky