CWP No.13183-CAT of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.13183-CAT OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION: 04-03-2008 Jagdeep Rajan .....PETITIONER VERSUS Union of India and others .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr.A.K.Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on 11-04-2007 (Annexure P7) whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment after the death of his father on 21-7-2003 was declined. It has been found by the Tribunal that the family of the deceased employee has been granted sufficient financial assistance such as death-cum-retirement gratuity of Rs.2,45,520/-, GPF of Rs.2,33,461/-, GIS amount of Rs.30,000/- and ex-gratia amount of Rs.29,820/-. Still further, family pension of Rs.3300/- per month is being paid to the family. It has been further found that name of the petitioner was kept in the waiting list of the candidates seeking employment on compassionate grounds. His name appears at Sr. N.17 whereas the persons senior to the petitioner in such list CWP No.13183-CAT of 2007 2 have not been given employment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be appointed in preference to those candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Circular dated 23-07-2001, Annexure P-8, wherein the restriction of 5% posts filled up by the candidates by way of compassionate appointment has been removed. It was decided therein to allow compassionate appointment beyond the ceiling of 5% in respect of those employees, who die while on active duty. It is thus contended that since there is no ceiling of 5% posts to be filled up by way of compassionate appointment, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. The appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of appointment. Such appointments have been found permissible only to meet out the extreme financial distress suffered by the family on account of unfortunate death of bread-winner. In the present case, the family of the deceased is getting family pension of Rs.3300/- per month, apart from other benefits. It is not a case of extreme financial distress. Still further, ceiling of 5% posts for appointment on compassionate ground was in fact reasonable ceiling as such ceiling alone will satisfy the test of reasonableness in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any ceiling over and above 5% in fact denies the right of appointment to the members of general public. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.G.(Karmik) & others Versus Prahalad Mani Tripathi, 2007 (6) S.C.C.-162, has held that the public employment is considered to be a wealth and cannot be given on descent. It was held to the following effect:- “xx xx xx xx 5. An employee of a State enjoys a status. Recruitment of employees of the State is governed CWP No.13183-CAT of 2007 3 by the rules framed under a statute or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of appointment, the State is obligated to give effect to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. All appointments, therefore, must conform to the said constitutional scheme. This Court, however, while laying emphasis on the said proposition carved out an exception in favour of the children or other relatives of the officer who dies or who becomes incapacitated while rendering services in the police department. 6. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion. xx xx xx xx” In view of the said fact, we are of the opinion that reliance of the petitioner on the Circular Annexure P-8 is not legally tenable as the reservation over and above 5% posts meant for direct recruitment to be filled in by way of appointment on compassionate ground, would not be fair and reasonable and shall be hit by the principles of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. CWP No.13183-CAT of 2007 4 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition, which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 04, 2008 JUDGE *mohinder/jt