CWP No.14895 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.14895 of 2007 Date of decision: 20.8.2008 Kela Devi -----Petitioner Vs. Haryana State Supply & marketing Federation (HAFED) and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. HN Khanduja, Avocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the respondents. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 22.6.2006, Annexure P.7 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Reason given in the impugned order is that as per the policy, only legal heir of regular employee could seek compassionate appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denial of compassionate appointment is not justified on the ground that husband of the petitioner was not a regular employee. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of Andhra 1 CWP No.14895 of 2007 Pradesh high Court in Eluri Marthamma v. Divisional Railways Manager, Writ Petition No.2281 of 1999, decided on 6.9.1999. It has also been submitted that earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition and a direction was given to consider the claim of the legal heir of the deceased for compassionate appointment. 3. In the reply filed, the stand taken is that the claim of the petitioner was duly considered but in view of instructions dated 31.3.2003 issued by the Government, the petitioner was found not eligible. 4. We have considered the rival contentions. 5. Husband of the petitioner died in harness on 31.8.2001. It has not been shown that there was any policy to give compassionate employment to the heir of a deceased casual employee Mere fact that the petitioner has been given family pension is no ground to hold that the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment. It is well settled that compassionate appointment has to be given as per policy and claim of the petitioner is not covered by the policy. We may also refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138: 1994(2) SLR 677 and Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, AIR 2004 SC 4155. 2 CWP No.14895 of 2007 6. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this petition. 7. Dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 20, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3