C.W.P.No.19871 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19871 of 2009 Date of Decision : 21.12.2009 Parveen Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH 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? Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on 20.8.2009, whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, was dismissed. Father of the petitioner namely Shri Bhagirath Sharma died on 5.10.2005 after rendering 33 years and 9 months of service. Had Shri Bhagirath Sharma been alive, he would have attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2007. The deceased left behind his wife, three married daughters and one major son i.e. the present petitioner. The respondents declined the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide communication dated 25.7.2008 on the ground that the mother of the petitioner has been allowed full family pension and she has also one house. The Compassionate Appointment Committee has considered the various parameters i.e. (i) income of family of deceased Government servant; (ii) educational qualification of the candidate; (iii) number of dependent; and (iv) liabilities left by the deceased Government servant. C.W.P.No.19871 of 2009 2 Learned Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application, inter alia, on the ground that object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden crisis. Such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right or on hereditary basis. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and only if it is satisfiled that the family will not be able to meet the crisis, a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. In the present case, the deceased has served the Department for more than 33 years. His family has been given full family pension. The petitioner, who is the son of the deceased, cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground only for the reason that the deceased has died few months before his expected date of superannuation. The petitioner has no hereditary claim. The compassionate appointment is given to tide over financial crisis. There is no such financial crisis with the marriage of three daughters and a house to live in. The petitioner is to compete with thousands of other eligible candidates seeking public employment. He cannot be given preference merely on the reason that his father happens to be in public employment. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal, which may warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 21.12.2009 (JORA SINGH) Vimal JUDGE