CWP No.17020 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.17020 of 2007 Date of decision: 8.9.2008 Kulwant Kumar ..Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 15th June, 2007 (Annexure P-3), whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the husband of the petitioner had worked as a work charge employee with the respondent No.4 and was subsequently working with the Municipal Corporation since 1992. The husband of the petitioner Shri Amrik Singh expired on 23rd February, 2007 after having served the respondents for a period of 15 years. Upon his death, representation was filed before the respondents for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The same has been rejected vide order (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the dependents of a daily wage employee cannot be CWP No.17020 of 2007 2 considered for being given appointment on compassionate ground. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been averred that a perusal of Annexure R-1 shows that the husband of the petitioner was working as a daily wage worker and not as a work charge employee and hence he is not covered by the instructions dated 9th October, 1998. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing Annexure R-1, it is clear that the husband of the petitioner was working as a daily wage worker. Apart from the above, a perusal of Note-II of the instructions issued by the Government of India dated 9th October, 1998 shows that only dependent of a Government servant who was appointed on regular basis, is entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground and not the dependent of a person who was working on daily wages, casual, apprentices, ad-hoc, contract or on re-employment basis. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 08, 2008 'rajpal'