IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1403 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 12, 2011 Kaushlya Devi …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.S. Pattar, Senior DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.5.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment. 2. After the death of her husband, who was working as a Counter Clerk on daily wage basis and unfortunately expired on 18.6.1991 as a result of an accident, the petitioner-appellant approached the respondents for compassionate appointment. On 16.1.1994, her claim was rejected by the respondents on the ground that her husband was not a regular employee. Feeling aggrieved, she filed C.W.P. No. 15893 of 1994 before this Court. The L.P.A. No. 1403 of 2010 (O&M) learned Single Judge has found that the claim of the petitioner-appellant is devoid of merit in view of the observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 481 and Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharastra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein their Lordships’ of Ho’ble the Supreme Court have held that compassionate appointment after a period of 12 years is impermissible. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Apart from the observations made by the learned Single on the basis of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it is equally 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 crisis created by the sudden death of the bread winner, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of National Hydro Electric Power Corpn. v. Nanak Chand, (2004) 12 SCC 487 and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalal, JT 1996 (9) SC 197. 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. The husband of the petitioner-appellant expired on 18.6.1991. It cannot be concluded that the situation created by the death of husband of the petitioner-appellant is still prevailing and continuing. There is, thus, no merit in the instant appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) 2 L.P.A. No. 1403 of 2010 (O&M) January 12, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor 3