IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 4623 OF 2007 DECIDED ON :July 14,2008 Gurbinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Finance Secretary, U.T. & others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.R.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Maninder, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.H.S.Giani, Advocate, for the respondents AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioner has challenged the orders of the respondent dated 24- 05-2006 declining the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds merely on the ground that there was no vacancy within the ceiling of 5%. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the letter dated 23- 07-2001 of the respondents themselves whereby the ceiling of 5% have been permitted to be exceeded in certain circumstances. He has also averred that there are certain vacancies against which the petitioner can be appointed. In our opinion, the claim of the petitioner must fail. This Court has held in U.T. Chandigarh versus Sandeep Kumar & others in CWP 1186-CAT of 2004 as follows :- “The appointment on compassionate ground is not a right with the dependents of the deceased employee. The appointment on compassionate ground can be claimed --2-- only in terms of the Policy instructions issued from time to time. The Central Government vide circular dated 09- 10-1998, has framed the Policy for appointment on compassionate ground and fixed 5% vacancies meant for direct recruits to be filled up from amongst the dependents of the deceased employee. Any larger percentage for appointment on compassionate ground will be in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as all eligible persons desirous of public employment had to be given an opportunity to compete for appointment against the public post in accordance with law. and The instructions dated 23-07-2001 created exception in respect of 5% quota in the Electricity, Transport and Police Department. The exception created in respect of employees of such department is in respect of those department employees, who die while in active duty. The active duty in not during the period of relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the State, but when the employee dies during the course of his employment actually working for the department. The policy for appointment on compassionate ground is otherwise applicable to the dependents of the employee who dies before attaining the age of superannuation.” --3-- In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/- [Ajay Tewari] Judge sd/- [Hemant Gupta] Judge July 14,2008 *MandeepKaur*