CWP No. 18603 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18603 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 25, 2010 Harpreet Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Ms. Gurmeet Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner in context of his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. 2. The facts in brief are that Sh. Gurcharan Singh s/o Labh Singh was working as Chief Inspector in Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-I Depot and died in harness on 03.07.1985. Sh. Gurcharan Singh is survived by 7 legal heirs namely Inderjit Kaur-wife, 5 daughters and one son. The petitioner is the son of Gurcharan Singh who, at the time of death of his father, was a minor. 3. To consider the facts in sequence of events, it transpires that Smt. Inderjit Kaur, widow of Gurcharan Singh applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. In response to her application a letter No. SE 2 (3) CWP No. 18603 of 2009 2 27077-150 dated 21.10.1988, Smt. Inderjit Kaur was invited to reach the office of respondents on 13.11.1988 for test. Inderjit Kaur, however, never turned up to take the test. The said person was again requested to come vide communication dated 01.03.1989. Inderjit Kaur, vide her application dated 28.03.1989, stated that she is unable to learn typing and cannot take type test. Inderjit Kaur requested the respondents that her daughter Rajneet Kaur, studying in B.A-I be appointed in her place. In such circumstances, the respondents considered the case of Rajneet Kaur for appointment on compassionate grounds. Punjab Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (Redeployment Cell) forwarded the case of Rajneet Kaur i.e. sister of the petitioner to Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar for appointment as a Clerk on compassionate grounds. Even Rajneet Kaur did not join the office of Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. Inderjit Kaur made representation that Rajneet Kaur got married and, therefore, is not willing to serve. Name of the son of Inderjit Kaur namely the petitioner be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. It is the case of the respondents that in the context of death of Sh. Gurcharan Singh, at the first instance, on the request of the widow, she (Inderjit Kaur) was offered appointment on compassionate grounds. On the request of Inderjit Kaur, subsequently, Rajneet Kaur was offered appointment. At this stage, the petitioner namely son of Gurcharan Singh claims appointment on compassionate grounds. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has right to be considered in view of instructions of the respondents which provide that in case legal heir is a minor at the point in time when an employee dies, his case can be considered for appointment on CWP No. 18603 of 2009 3 compassionate grounds on his attaining age of majority. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that Gurcharan Singh died in the year 1985. The family members were offered appointment, however, the offer was not accepted. In such circumstances, the petitioner has no right to claim appointment. 7. I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the parties. 8. In 2008 (8) SCC 475 entitled General Manager, State Bank of India and others Vs. Anju Jain, in para no. 31, the following has been held:- “31. We are of the view that both the courts were wrong in granting relief to the writ petitioner. Appointment on compassionate ground is never considered a right of a person. In fact, such appointment is violative of rule of equality enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. As per settled law, when any appointment is to be made in Government or semi- government or in public office, cases of all eligible candidates must be considered alike. That is the mandate of Article 14. Normally, therefore, the State or its instrumentality making any appointment to public office, cannot ignore such mandate. At the same time, however, in certain circumstances, appointment on compassionate ground of dependants of the deceased employee is considered inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee may not starve. The primary object of such CWP No. 18603 of 2009 4 scheme is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to death of the sole bread earner. It is thus an exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment.” 9. In 1994 (4) SCC 138, in para no. 2, the following has been held:- “2. The question relates to the consideration which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of any employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to CWP No. 18603 of 2009 5 provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.................... The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution..................... It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 10. Having considered the legal position in the context of the claim of CWP No. 18603 of 2009 6 the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The purpose of giving employment on compassionate grounds is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to death of the sole bread earner. It is an exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment. Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be considered by a person as his right as it is violative of Rule of Equality enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. 11. As a Rule, appointments in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitations of applications and merit, however, certain exceptions have been carved out in the interest of justice so as to meet certain contingencies and one such exception is in favour of dependents of an employee dying in any harness while leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such circumstances, out of pure humanitarian consideration, a provision is made in the Rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who is eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. 12. The respondents offered appointment in close proximity of time of death of Gurcharan Singh to his widow Inderjit Kaur, who, however, did not accept the appointment. Inderjit Kaur asked the respondents to consider the case of her daughter Rajneet Kaur for appointment on compassionate grounds. 13. The respondents considering the case of Rajneet Kaur, offered appointment to her. Rajneet Kaur got married and, therefore, did not accept CWP No. 18603 of 2009 7 the offer. At this juncture, the petitioner being the son of Gurcharan Singh, seeks appointment on compassionate grounds. 14. The entire issue is required to be considered in the context of date of death of Gurcharan Singh viz. 03.07.1985. The family has survived till date i.e. for 25 years. As per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the case of the petitioner cannot even be considered for giving employment on compassionate grounds and, therefore, I find that the petitioner has no right to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction to seek appointment under the exceptional Rule. 15. Petition dismissed. 25.10.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?