IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17575 of 1991 Date of decision: 29.07.2011 Smt. Kamla ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana etc. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Simran Sadana, Advocate for Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. Late Sh. Rattan Singh husband of the petitioner was working as Tubewell Operator who died on 03.08.1991. In the year 1991, the petitioner had filed this writ petition seeking mandamus for her appointment on the compassionate ground due to the death of her husband. It is stated that while on duty, he noticed starter of the tubewell motor to be out of order and left for Ghraunda to report the matter to senior officers. Enroute he got electrocuted due to hanging electric cable in the vicinity of village Kheri Raipur. Relying upon the instructions dated 22.12.1970, which made a provision for appointment of one or more members of the family of the deceased employee for absorption in Government service, the petitioner had applied for being appointed to the post of Peon. The petitioner claims that she was given the post of Peon for a period of two days and then for another 15 days but was not paid Civil Writ Petition No. 17575 of 1991 -2- anything. The petitioner claims that she would be entitled to permanent absorption and entitled to employment on compassionate ground on priority basis as her services were terminated after 17 days without issuing any termination letter. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed this writ petition. Basically, the petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate ground by relying upon the Government instructions. The writ petition stands admitted and has come up for hearing after almost 20 years of date of cause of action. In the written statement filed, it is admitted that the husband of the petitioner died while working as Pump Operator but it is stated that he was a work charge employee. Not being a regular employee, services of the late husband of the petitioner was not governed by the service rules and, accordingly, the instructions applicable for grant of service benefit or for appointment, would not apply. The averment made in the petition that the petitioner was given appointment of Peon, on which she worked for two days and thereafter for 15 days is denied. There is no material placed on record to substantiate this averment made in the petition. Due to sheer passage of time, the issue of compassionate appointment as on date may not be appropriate. The policy instructions, which are relied upon has also been superseded. Whether the petitioner can now, at this belated stage, seek appointment on compassionate basis would also be an issue. After so much lapse of time, there would hardly be any case Civil Writ Petition No. 17575 of 1991 -3- made out for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. July 29, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE