CWP NO.49 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.49 OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION: 03-03-2008 Asha Khurana .....PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Narender Hooda, advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction for quashing of the order Annexure P9 dated 31-10-2006 whereby her claim of compassionate appointment was declined. The husband of the petitioner, Devinder Khurana died on 27-05-2000. Earlier the petitioner sought appointment of her daughter on compassionate ground vide application Annexure P1. It was pointed out that she is employed in a private firm and drawing a salary of Rs.7,000/- per month. The name of daughter of the petitioner was kept in the tentative seniority list of ex-gratia cases. However, subsequently on 12-08-2005, the CWP NO.49 of 2007 2 petitioner sought appointment for herself on compassionate ground on the ground that she has left the service. In terms of Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Departments of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, the application for appointment on compassionate ground is to be made within a period of 3 years of the death of the employee. Application dated 12-08-2005 for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was made after the period fixed in the said Rules. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek appointment on compassionate ground particularly when, the petitioner was employed at the time of death of her husband. The case of the petitioner is not that of financial hardship. It has been found in Annexure P9 that the petitioner was in employment in private sector since 04-07-1977 and was drawing salary of Rs.12,175/-. The said fact has come on record when the suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondents. In view of the said fact, the claim of the petitioner that she is entitled to the financial assistance, in the event of compassionate appointment being granted to her, is also not sustainable. Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the order Annexure P9 whereby the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and compensation has been declined. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 03, 2008 JUDGE jt