IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 13337-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision: July 30, 2010 Seema Bains …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. K.L. Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 18.11.2009 (P-7), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), dismissing the Original Application bearing OA No. 110/CH/2009, filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 29.5.2008, passed by respondent No. 2, rejecting her claim seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. She has sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to consider her request for compassionate appointment afresh. The mother of the petitioner, who was working as Telephone Supervisor, unfortunately expired on 12.9.2003, leaving behind two sons and two daughters. It is conceded position that one son and one daughter are CWP No. 13337 of 2010 already employed. The petitioner was dependent upon her mother. After graduation she applied for compassionate appointment to a Group C post. Her case was processed by the respondent department in the light of Weightage Point System introduced in the respondent department vide letter dated 27.6.2007. Under the said system points are allocated on the basis of various criterion such as number of wholly dependent family members of the ex- official including special weightage to handicap, minor member in the family and unmarried daughter, special weightage to the widow if seeking compassionate appointment for herself, left out service of the ex-official, general aspects of the family based on amount of family pension, terminal benefits, presence of earning member in the family (if any), belated request etc. etc. If an applicant earns more than 55 points, his/her case is considered for compassionate appointment. The petitioner earned less than 55 points, therefore, her claim was rejected by respondent No. 2, vide order dated 29.5.2008 (P-2). She approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 110-CH-2009. The Tribunal after noticing the factual position regarding the surviving family members and various financial benefits given to them after the death of sole bread earner, such as family pension, gratuity, GPF, CGE Insurance etc., came to the conclusion that the family of the deceased employee cannot be said to be in an immediate financial crises. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner, vide impugned order dated18.11.2009. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant petition warranting admission. The Tribunal has returned a categorical finding that the financial position of the petitioner’s family is not such that they are in dire need of 2 CWP No. 13337 of 2010 employment on compassionate basis. Even otherwise, the petitioner has no legal right even for appointment on compassionate grounds in the first place. It is well settled that the compassionate appointment is not a mode of entry into service but it is only to help the surviving members of the family to overcome sudden financial crises created by the sudden death of bread winner, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 3 SCC 394 and National Hydro Electric Power Corpn. v. Nanak Chand, (2004) 12 SCC 487. Such an appointment cannot be secured as a matter of right as it is an exception to Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no legal infirmity in the order dated 18.11.2009, passed by the Tribunal as well as order dated 29.5.2008, passed by respondent No. 2. Accordingly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) July 30, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3