CWP No.21082 of 2008 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 29.06.2010 Jagdip Singh ... Petitioner Versus Punjab and Sind Bank through its Managing Director and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.HS Batth, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.JS Sathi, Advocate, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Petitioner's father, late Pritam Sigh, was working as a Gunman in the office of respondent No.4. He died in harness on 19.02.1998. Admittedly, the petitioner was minor and less than 16 years of age at the time of death of his father. The petitioner attained the majority in the year 2001 and thereafter he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. There is certain correspondence between the functionaries of various departments. It appears that the petitioner was asked to submit necessary documents for consideration for compassionate appointment. In the meantime, the bank's policy for compassionate appointment came to be modified. Under the modified policy issued in the year 2002, the compassionate appointment could be given to the spouse of the deceased employee and not to the children of the deceased employee. On the basis of the modified scheme, the mother of the petitioner was asked to make requisite application for her appointment. She did not apply a fresh. The CWP No.21082 of 2008 : 2 : claim of the petitioner on compassionate appointment has been rejected vide the impugned communication dated 08.07.2006 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of the aforesaid communication rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds with a further prayer to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. It is now settled proposition of law that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. The object and purport of the compassionate appointment is to over come the immediate financial needs. It is a succor in distress to the deceased family. It is now more than 12 years that the family has survived after the death of the deceased bread earner. It is brought to the notice of this Court that financial benefits under the modified scheme has already been granted to the mother of the petitioner which has been accepted by her without any protest. In view of the above, at this belated stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2008 (2) S.C.T., 669, has held as under:- “ 16. Furthermore, about 12 years have passed. Appellant's son is aged about 20 years and daughter is aged 16 years. Therefore, they have become major. Appellant herself would be aged about 38 years now. She cannot be given any appointment at this age.” For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the present CWP No.21082 of 2008 : 3 : writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 29.06.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE