IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 19835 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 13, 2010 Surinder Kaur …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr.Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 21.7.2009 (P-4), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in OA No. 466/PB/2008. It is admitted position on record that the husband of the applicant-petitioner had expired in harness on 25.3.1999, leaving behind seven members in the family. The children of the deceased were minor at that point of time. The applicant-petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Her application was duly recommended and forwarded by the Deputy Press Information Officer, Northern Region, PIB, Chandigarh, vide letter dated 8.5.2000. The case of the petitioner was considered on 19.12.2002 but was not recommended by the Committee as there were other candidates who were CWP No. 19835 of 2009 more deserving than her. Again her name was considered in the meetings held on 19.5.2004 and 20.5.2004 (R-V, R-VI & R-VII). Since no post for direct recruitment was available for being filled up on compassionate basis, the Committee short-listed the applications of dependents of three deceased employees including the petitioner’s husband. However, on account of non- availability of vacancy, she could not be granted appointment on compassionate basis. On 3.11.2006, the name of the petitioner was again considered for appointment on compassionate grounds but not recommended by the Committee. The case of the petitioner was closed after three years in terms of the instructions dated 5.5.2003 (R-VIII) Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant petition warranting admission. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the applicant-petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that as per clauses 2 and 3 of the instructions dated 5.5.2003, issued by the Government of India, the name of a person for consideration and appointment on compassionate grounds could be kept alive maximum for a period of three years, subject to the condition that the prescribed committee has reviewed and certified the penurious conditions of the applicant at the end of the first and second year. After three years, if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered to the applicant, his/her case would be finally closed and not to be considered again. It is nobody’s case that the petitioner has not been considered for compassionate appointment by the Committee (R-V, R-VII & R-VII). As already noticed in the preceding para, the case of the petitioner has been duly considered by the Committee thrice i.e. on 19.5.2004, 20.5.2004 and 3.11.2006. On the first occasion there were more deserving cases and on the other two occasions there 2 CWP No. 19835 of 2009 was no post belonging to direct quota. Eventually, in terms of the instructions dated 5.5.2003, her case has been rightly closed. It is well settled that the compassionate appointment is not a mode of entry into service but it is only to help the surviving members of the family to overcome sudden financial crises created by the sudden death of bread winner, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 3 SCC 394 and National Hydro Electric Power Corpn. v. Nanak Chand, (2004) 12 SCC 487. Such an appointment cannot be secured as a matter of right as it is an exception to Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The husband of the petitioner expired on 25.3.1999. It cannot be concluded that the situation created by the death of husband of the petitioner is still continuing. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) July 13, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3