IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19994 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 20, 2009 Narender Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order 11.9.2008 (Annexure P-9) vide which the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Further prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds on account of CWP No.19994 of 2008 [2] death of father of the petitioner. Rattan Singh, father of the petitioner was employed as Driver on daily wage basis in the office of respondent No.3 i.e. Executive Engineer, Field Mechanical & Construction Production Division, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpurkandi Township, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. Services of Rattan Singh were terminated in the year 1983. The order of termination was challenged before the Labour Court, Gurdaspur. The Labour Court, vide Award dated 10.3.1992 (Annexure P-1) directed reinstatement of the father of the petitioner in service with continuity of service and full back wages. It seems that award of the Labour Court was not implemented and therefore, a writ petition was filed in this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, it has been pleaded that, father of the petitioner died. The petitioner has been impleaded in the said petition in the place of his father. Some directions have been issued in the writ petition in view of an agreement between the parties. Be that as it may, order dated 5.1.2001 (Annexure P-2) passed by this Court in the CWP No.2121 of 1985 makes it evident that the petitioner was held entitled to back wages for CWP No.19994 of 2008 [3] the period from the date when Rattan Singh was discharged till the date of his death on 29.9.1994. The petitioner being dependent on his father and being the only male member, claims to be eligible for compassionate appointment. Application for compassionate appointment in view of the death of his father was made. The case of the petitioner for appointment on the said ground has been rejected by the respondents vide impugned order, Annexure P-9. Impugned Order, Annexure P-9, notices that the petitioner applied for getting employment on 29.11.2005 which was sent to the Head Office. The claim has been rejected in view of the fact that services of Rattan Singh had not been regularised and therefore, claim of his wards cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. The issue of appointment on compassionate grounds has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various judgments. While dealing with S.B.I. vs. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475, it has been held that appointment on compassionate ground is never considered a right of a person. In fact, such appointment is violative of rule of equality enshrined and CWP No.19994 of 2008 [4] guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. It has further been observed that the primary object of such scheme is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to death of the sole bread earner. It is thus exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment. Compassionate appointment is really a concession in favour of dependents of a deceased employee. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the scope of the Scheme adopted by the respondents for giving appointment on compassionate grounds. The appointment on compassionate grounds not being a vested right, in my considered view, action of the respondents does not call for interference in writ jurisdiction. Likewise in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, it has been observed that consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread winner, the compassionate employment cannot be CWP No.19994 of 2008 [5] claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Considering the spirit of the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground, I find that the case of the petitioner has no merit in so much as father of the petitioner died in 1994. The application for appointment on compassionate grounds itself was made in the year 2005 i.e. after 11 years. Consideration of a person such as the petitioner would defeat the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. In view of the time already elapsed, also I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the respondents. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 20, 2009 JUDGE avin