C.W.P.No.15989 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.15989 of 2007 Date of Decision : 10.04.2008 Chandigarh Administration .....Petitioner versus Sukhminder Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Ms.Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate and Shri Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sukhdeep Brar, Advocate for respondent No.1. -.- 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. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') dated 31.8.2006, Annexure P-1, whereby an Original Application filed by Sukhminder Kaur-respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant') seeking appointment of compassionate ground was allowed and the present petitioner was directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground against any available post. C.W.P.No.15989 of 2007 2 The husband of the applicant died on 19.5.2002. On 24.7.2002, the applicant applied for appointment on compassionate ground. However, the claim of the petitioner for appointment of compassionate ground was closed on 19.5.2005, after 3 years from the date of death of her husband. The instructions dated 5.5.2003 contemplates that the case of appointment on compassionate ground can be considered for a maximum period of 3 years, keeping in view the pecuniary condition of the applicant, provided such case is reviewed at the end of 1st and the 2nd years. Such instructions were issued in modification of the earlier instructions dated 9.10.1998 and 3.12.1999. There was no time limit prescribed for considering the name of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground in the Instructions dated 9.10.1998. However, by virtue of the Circular dated 3.12.1999, the period of one year was fixed. Such period was extended to maximum 3 years vide Instructions dated 5.5.2003. The aforesaid Instructions have been examined by this Court in “Civil Writ Petition No.5994-CAT of 2007, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others Versus Racho Devi and another, decided on 14.3.2008”, wherein it has been held that the case of appointment on compassionate ground is not required to be kept alive for a period of 3 years from the date of recommendations by the Common Committee. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “xx xx xx xx The compassionate appointment is to be given to the dependents of the deceased Government employee to tide over the immediate financial crises. For a period of 6 years, the appointment on compassionate ground could not be offered to C.W.P.No.15989 of 2007 3 the dependents of the deceased Government employee for the reason that there was no post available. Therefore, the applicant before the learned Tribunal cannot insist for the appointment on compassionate ground after such a long period and to keep his case pending. In fact, no time limit was fixed in the Circular contemplating compassionate appointment, issued in the year 1998. In the Circular dated 3.12.1999, it was contemplated that the Committee it to make recommendations only if the vacancy is likely to be available within a year. The said period of one year was extended to 3 years on 5.5.2003. In fact, the Common Committee has made the recommendations for appointment without examining the availability of the vacancies. Sufficient number of vacancies were not available even within 3 years of making of such recommendations. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is not justified in law in holding that the instructions dated 5.5.2003 are not retrospective in nature as by such instructions only time limit was extended from one to three years. In fact, in terms of circular dated 3.12.1999, the time limit to keep the name pending was only one year. xx xx xx xx.” For the reasons recorded in the aforesaid writ petition, which are applicable to the facts of the present case as well, the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the present case, dated 31.8.2006 is not tenable. C.W.P.No.15989 of 2007 4 Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 31.8.2006, Annexure P-1 is set aside. The Original Application of the applicant-respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 10-04-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE