CWP No.19433 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19433 of 2011 Date of Decision: 17.10.2011 Sarup Chand ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, ACJ. 1. The instant petition in public interest has been filed for quashing the letter dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-3). The main grievance made by the petitioner is that respondent nos.7 and 8 have entered into government service by citing the reason of death of their father whereas only one person out of the two could have been granted the benefit. However, the facts which have been revealed in the enquiry held by the Deputy Commissioner are to the contrary as is evident from the perusal of letter dated 29.04.2008 (P-3). The Deputy Commissioner – respondent No.5 has recorded a categorical finding that respondent No.8 Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Milkhi Ram Patwari had been working on ad hoc basis in the Education Deparment from 08.09.1969 to 04.12.1973. After 04.12.1973 he was in service without any break before the death of Sh. Milkhi Ram Patwari his father who died on CWP No.19433 of 2011 -2- 05.10.1975. The findings further are that he was not dependent upon his father and, therefore, there was no question of giving him appointment on compassionate ground. 2. The aforesaid appointment has been challenged on the ground that Krishan Kumar – respondent No.7 brother of Pawan Kumar was given appointment on compassionate ground on the basis that his father Milkhi Ram Patwari had died while in service on 05.10.1975. If Pawan Kumar was already in service and was not dependent on his father then there was no bar to offer appointment on compassionate ground to his brother Krishan Kumar – respondent No.7. It is not established that the benefit of compassionate appointment has been extended to both respondent nos.7 and 8. Infact it is clear that only Krishan Kumar, respondent no.7 has been given appointment on compassionate ground. 3. The instant petition seems to be a private interest litigation rather than the public interest litigation. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. 4. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 17.10.2011 manju