IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 13142 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.7.2010. Somawanti --Petitioner Versus M.D. H.V.P.N.L, Panchkula and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. R.K. Berbian, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The husband of the petitioner was working as A.L.M with the respondents. He died in harness on 8.11.1979. Petitioner made an application for ex-gratia employment. It is stated that the petitioner continued to represent to the respondents for compassionate appointment from time to time. The petitioner ultimately served a legal notice dated 11.3.2010 which has been responded to vide the impugned order dated 4.5.2010 (Annexure P-14). The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as also for the family pension has been rejected. It is against the aforesaid order that the petitioner has filed this petition. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner died more than 22 years back. It is settled principle of law that the compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. The very object and purpose 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:- CWP. No. 13142 of 2010 -2- “ 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, 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.” In so far the claim of the petitioner for family pension is concerned, it is specifically mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner was having only 6 months and 7 days of regular service and the CWP. No. 13142 of 2010 -3- family pension is not payable under rules. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any valid ground to interfere in the impugned order. No merit, petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 28.7.2010. lucky