C.W.P.No.2111 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.2111 of 2007 Date of Decision : 31.01.2008 Krishan Yadav .....Petitioner versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri Rahul Dhanotia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order Annexure P-10 passed by the respondents on 29.11.2006, whereby claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of Munshi Ram, was declined. It has been found that Munshi Ram, who was working as driver with the respondents department, died on 21.11.1993. The petitioner claims to be adopted son of Munshi Ram and on the basis of succession certificate obtained on 21.6.2004, the petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground as dependent son of Munshi Ram. Munshi Ram died in the year 1993, whereas, the petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2004. The C.W.P.No.2111 of 2007 2 appointment of compassionate ground is to meet out the immediate financial difficulties of the family. Even if the petitioner is treated to be a member of the family, he sought appointment after more than 10 years of the death of his father. After more than 10 years of the death of Munshi Ram, it cannot be said that the family of the petitioner is in financial distress which may necessitate appointment on compassionate ground. Thus, it cannot be said that it was a case of extreme financial hardship which may warrant consideration of the claim of the petitioner for appointment of compassionate ground by the respondents. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 31-01-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE