IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1134 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 12.11.2009 State of Haryana and another. -----Appellants Vs. Naresh Kumar. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana. for the appellants. Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate for respondent/caveator. --- ORDER: 1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2. Main contention raised in this appeal is that Maha Singh father of the respondent took retirement on medical grounds in the year 1999 and application filed by the respondent for compassionate appointment, as per policy dated 31.8.1995, Annexure P-2, was considered and rejected in the year 1999, but writ petition was filed in the year 2007. In absence of prompt claim, after accrual of cause of action, the petition seeking LPA No.1134 of 2009 direction for compassionate appointment was highly belated and should have been dismissed on this ground. 3. Only explanation furnished by learned counsel for the respondent/caveator is that before filing the present writ petition, the respondent had filed a writ petition on 31.8.2006, in which a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner was given. This contention cannot be accepted, as even earlier writ petition was filed seven years after accrual of cause of action and mere direction to consider representation is not enough to overcome the bar of laches. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-caveator also relied upon judgment of this Court dated 20.12.2005 in C.W.P. No.19693 of 2004 Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana on merits. We are unable to accept this submission, as the respondent having approached the Court after 7/8 years of accrual of cause of action, could not be given the benefit of compassionate appointment. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over sudden crisis and not to create a right and such appointment cannot be given after lapse of time. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana 1994 (4) SCC 138 and State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766. In view of above, we allow this appeal and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent. 2 LPA No.1134 of 2009 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 12, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3