C.W.P. No.17856 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17856 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 26, 2009 Smt. Omwati and another .....PETITIONERS Versus IRCON International Limited and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.K.L. Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.P.Nagrath and Mr.Manoj Nagrath, Advocates, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The widow and son of the deceased employee, who was working as Class IV employee in the respondent Company, have filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 5.9.2008 (Annexure P1) whereby the claim of petitioner No.2 (son of the deceased employee) for giving him compassionate appointment, has been rejected; with a direction to the respondents to give compassionate appointment to petitioner No.2 as Class IV employee. Vide impugned order, the claim of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that there is no policy or any rule of the respondent Company which provides for appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the employees of the Company, who died in harness. C.W.P. No.17856 of 2008 -2- In the written statement, similar stand has been taken by the respondents. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as well as reply filed by the respondents, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is admitted position that the petitioner Company, which is a Public Sector Undertaking under the administrative control of Ministry of Railways and is in the business of construction, is governed by its own set of rules, including the Service Rules. The Rules applicable in the Government departments or in the Ministry of Railways do not apply automatically or ipso facto to the Company. The Rules in the Company are framed with the approval of the Board of Directors. Concededly, under the Rules of the Company, there is no Scheme for offering appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the employees, who died in harness. The right of petitioner No.2 to be considered for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father in harness only flows from a Scheme for compassionate appointment, if made by the respondent Company. When concededly, the respondent Company has not framed any Scheme for offering appointment on compassionate grounds, no direction can be issued to the respondent Company to give appointment to petitioner No.2 on that ground. In State Bank of India and Anr. v. Somvir Singh, AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 505, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the C.W.P. No.17856 of 2008 -3- one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions, as the case may be. Similarly, in National Institute of Technology and others v. Niraj Kumar Singh, AIR 2007 SC 1155, it was held that the appointment on compassionate grounds would be illegal in absence of any scheme providing therefor. Without a scheme, the dependent of a deceased employee cannot be given appointment on compassionate grounds. It is conceded position that the respondents have neither framed any scheme nor there is any rule/policy, which provide for compassionate appointment. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner merely on the ground that twenty years ago, one dependent of a deceased employee of the respondent Company was given appointment, which was completely de hors the rules or instructions of the respondent Company. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. May 26, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE