IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2091 of 2011 Date of Decision: April 19, 2011 Rajesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN T.P.S. MANN T.P.S. MANN T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The un-successful applicant-petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order dated 22.4.2009 (P-4) rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his father in harness on 19.7.2004. 2. A perusal of the paper book reveals that after the death of her husband Smt. Mukhtiari Devi made an application, dated 7.8.2004, seeking compassionate appointment for the applicant- petitioner. On 21.4.2008 (A-1), the respondents informed the mother of the applicant-petitioner that her request for compassionate appointment has been closed in view of the fact C.W.P. No. 2091 of 2011 2 that as per the rules prevailing at that time the compassionate appointments could be made within three years after the death of the employee out of 5% direct recruitment. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant-petitioner filed O.A. No. 303/PB/2008 before the Tribunal. 3. It was pointed out by the respondents before the Tribunal that a sum of `3,05,679/- on account of pension, gratuity, GPF, CGIS and leave encashment was paid to the mother of the applicant-petitioner. It was further stated that they scored only 36 points based on various attributes to assess the financial condition of the family. During the relevant period i.e. from 2004 to 2008, there were 25 other cases pending. Furthermore, there was no vacancy during this period under 5% direct recruitment quota, therefore, all the cases were closed. The Tribunal after noticing the instructions dated 5.5.2003 issued by the Government of India came to the conclusion that three years is maximum period for which name of a person could be kept under consideration for compassionate appointment. The Tribunal also found that the respondents considered the case of the applicant-petitioner and prepared a comparative list in which his name figures at Sr. No. 3. However, after lapse of the period of three years, the cases were closed. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the original application holding that no discrimination has been made. It has further been specifically noticed that the applicant-petitioner has managed to survive all these years and the object of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden crisis. Such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right or on hereditary basis. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of C.W.P. No. 2091 of 2011 3 the considered view that the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the compassionate appointment is not a mode of entry into service but it is only to help the surviving members of the family to overcome sudden financial crisis created by the sudden death of the bread winner, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of National Hydro National Hydro National Hydro National Hydro Electric Power Corpn. Electric Power Corpn. Electric Power Corpn. Electric Power Corpn. v. v. v. v. Nanak Chand Nanak Chand Nanak Chand Nanak Chand, (2004) 12 SCC 487 , (2004) 12 SCC 487 , (2004) 12 SCC 487 , (2004) 12 SCC 487 and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. v. v. v. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalal Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalal Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalal Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalal, JT , JT , JT , JT 1996 (9) SC 197 1996 (9) SC 197 1996 (9) SC 197 1996 (9) SC 197. Such an appointment cannot be secured as a matter of right as it is an exception to Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The father of the applicant-petitioner expired on 19.7.2004. It cannot be concluded that the situation created by his death is still prevailing and continuing. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Santosh Kumar Dubey Santosh Kumar Dubey Santosh Kumar Dubey Santosh Kumar Dubey v. v. v. v. State of U.P. State of U.P. State of U.P. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC , (2009) 6 SCC , (2009) 6 SCC , (2009) 6 SCC 481 481 481 481 and Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. v. v. v. State of Maharastra State of Maharastra State of Maharastra State of Maharastra, (2008) 11 SCC , (2008) 11 SCC , (2008) 11 SCC , (2008) 11 SCC 384 384 384 384, has held that compassionate appointment after lapse of number of years is impermissible. There is, thus, no merit in the instant petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN T.P.S. MANN T.P.S. MANN T.P.S. MANN) April 19 April 19 April 19 April 19, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor