IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos. 5159 & 4877 of 2011 & LPA No. 1815 of 2011 Date of Decision: 18.10.2011. Vinod Rawal --Appellant Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. Present:- Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) C.M. No. 5159 of 2011 Application is allowed. Affidavit of the appellant is taken on record. C.M. No. 4877 of 2011 There is a delay of 125 days in filing the appeal. There does not seem to be any valid explanation, however, taking a liberal view, we allow the application and condone the delay in filing the appeal. LPA No. 1815 of 2011 `This L.P.A is directed against the judgement dated 16.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner for grant of ex-gratia employment. Appellant herein is the son of one Sh. Ajaib Singh, who was admittedly unmarried and a public servant. He died in harness on 21.7.1998. Appellant claims to be the adopted son of the deceased employee who was his real uncle (father's brother). At the time of death of deceased LPA No. 1815 of 2011 -2- Govt. employee the appellant was minor. Appellant laid his claim on the retiral benefits of the deceased Govt. employee. He applied for grant of Succession Certificate before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Panipat (exercising the powers of District Judge under the Indian Succession Act). While applying for the Succession Certificate the appellant also claimed financial assistance of Rs.2.50 lacs besides the family pension and death- cum-retirement gratuity. Petition filed by the appellant for grant of Succession Certificate was allowed vide order dated 9.8.2010. The appellant, however, approached the respondents and made a representation dated 2.2.2011 claiming ex-gratia employment being the adopted son of the deceased Ajaib Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no order has been passed on the representation of the appellant for grant of ex-gratia employment. Under these circumstances the appellant filed CWP No. 4668 of 2011 which stands dismissed vide the impugned order. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has been allowed payment of Rs.2.50 lacs as ex- gratia compensation on the basis of Succession Certificate and thus his claim for ex-gratia employment is not sustainable. As noticed above the appellant did make a claim for ex-gratia financial assistance while applying for Succession Certificate in respect to the retiral claims of the deceased Govt. employee. He having opted for ex-gratia compensation now cannot turn around and claim compassionate appointment. Learned Single Judge has rightly declined the prayer made by the appellant. Apart from above, the appellant is also disentitled to make such a claim because at the time of death of the deceased employee, he was a LPA No. 1815 of 2011 -3- minor and could not claim employment. He made a representation for compassionate appointment only in February, 2011 i.e after a lapse of more than 10 years from the date of death of the deceased Govt. employee. The claim for compassionate appointment is belated one. It is settled principle of law that the compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. The very object and purport of the compassionate appointment is to enable the family in penury to overcome the immediate financial needs. At this belated stage compassionate appointment is impermissible under law. 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 year 2002. What prompted the petitioner to move this petition after 6 years, LPA No. 1815 of 2011 -4- 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.” For the above reasons, we do not find any valid ground to interfere. Appeal dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 18.10.2011. lucky