C.W.P.No.6777 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6777 of 2008 Date of Decision : 25.4.2008 Lakhmir Singh .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Ms.Jatinderjit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father Mohan Singh on 15.10.1998. It is the case of the petitioner that his father Mohan Singh, working with the respondent-department, died on 15.10.1998 and after the death of father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner was given appointment as Driver vide letter of appointment dated 14.10.2003, Annexure P-1, but on account of medical unfitness, the petitioner was not permitted to join the duties. The petitioner gave an option for appointment as Chowkidar/Peon on compassionate ground, but such request of the petitioner has been declined by the respondents vide order C.W.P.No.6777 of 2008 2 dated 18.4.2006, Annexure P-4. It is the said order which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Vide the order impugned in the writ petition, it was communicated to the petitioner that the quota prescribed for the purpose of compassionate appointment is only 5% of the total direct recruitment vacancies occurring in the year in the Group 'C' and 'D' categories posts. It was found that the family of the deceased received Rs.3,48,095/- as terminal benefits and the mother of the petitioner is getting monthly family pension. It has also been taken into consideration that the vacancies in 5% quota meant for direct recruitment for the purpose, are not available for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. We have examined the similar claim of appointment on compassionate ground in “Civil Writ Petition No.13472 of 2006, Union of India Versus Tilak Raj and another, decided on 5.12.2007” and Civil Writ Petition No.15304 of 2006, Jagdish Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another, decided on 26.2.2008”. In the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a right but a concession. Such concession is extended to the dependent members of the deceased employee to enable the family to get over the immediate financial crises which it faces at the time of death of the sole bread winner. In the present case, the petitioner lost his father in the year 1998 i.e., more than 9 years earlier. It cannot be said that the financial distress is continuing, though it is admitted case of the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner is getting family pension and has also got the terminal benefits. The appointment on C.W.P.No.6777 of 2008 3 compassionate ground can be sought only in terms of the Scheme and not dehors thereto. In view of the said fact, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the communication, Annexure P-4 dated 18.4.2006, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been declined, which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 25-04-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE