IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 6471 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.4.2010. Satish Kumar --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. S.K. Monga, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The father of the petitioner died in harness on 11.3.1994. Admittedly, the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. At the relevant time the Govt. Instructions dated 3.11.1988 were in operation, whereunder the ex-gratia appointment was permissible on attaining the age of majority. It is alleged that the mother of the petitioner made an appliction for compassionate appointment. The petitioner passed 10+2 in the year 2006 and again approached the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide order (Annexure P-6) on the ground that the application was made after 12 years from the date of death of deceased employee. Similarly vide another communication (Annexure P-7) the claim of the petitioner has been rejected not being covered under the 2003 policy and having become time barred. There is another communication (Annexure P-8), wherein the earlier stand of the respondents has been reiterated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehmently argued that under the then policy of 1988 the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment. CWP. No. 6471 of 2010 -2- It is settled principle of law that the compassionate appointment is not a special or distinct source of recruitment. The very object and purpose of the compassionate appointment is to enable the family in penury to overcome the immediate financial needs. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1994. It is now 16 years. After such a long period no compassionate appointment is permissible. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported as 2008(2) SCT 669, made following observations:- “ 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.” On the basis of the aforesaid judgement, this Court in case of Mulkhraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others reported as 2009(4) S.C.T 87 has held as under:- “ It is now settled legal position that compassionate appointment is not a mode or source of recruitment. Such appointments are given purely on compassion and humanitarian grounds to enable the family of the deceased Govt. servant to overcome their minimum immediate financial needs. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the mandate of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution in the public interest. The petitioner, though, was not eligible at the time of death of his father but the Govt. in its wisdom granted him compassionate appointment even after 13 years of the death of his father. As a matter of fact the Govt. was not obliged to grant any such concession after such a long delay. Be that as it may, the compassion was shown and the petitioner accepted the appointment in the CWP. No. 6471 of 2010 -3- year 2002. What prompted the petitioner to move this petition after 6 years, is not evident from the averments made in the petition. The legal position in regard to the delay for such appointment and the right of an appointee on compassion to seek appointment on a higher post has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases.” In view of the above legal position, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 8.4.2010. lucky