pIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1553 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 8, 2011 Asha Rani …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. John Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 6.5.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment of her son in lieu of death of her husband in harness. 2. A perusal of the paper book reveals that after the death of her husband, who was working as a Junior Engineer with the respondents and unfortunately expired on 20.12.1998, the petitioner-appellant requested the respondents that one seat be reserved for her son for compassionate appointment till he attains the age of majority because he was minor at that point of time and studying in 7th standard. His date of birth is stated to be 6.8.1987. On 6.1.2003, the respondents directed her to file an affidavit giving L.P.A. No. 1553 of 2010 (O&M) an option whether she was ready to receive the sum of ` 2,50,000/- or employment under ex-gratia scheme. On 11.3.2003 she gave the option that sum of ` 2,50,000/- be given to her instead of employment because she was in dire need of money. On 5.8.2009, she filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction claiming that she is entitled to seek compassionate employment for her son as Clerk or in the alternative to a sum of ` 2,50,000/- under ex-gratia scheme of the State of Haryana along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum (P-3). On 30.11.2009, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Karnal, dismissed the suit as withdrawn on the basis of a statement made by the counsel for the petitioner-appellant (P-4). On 26.4.2010, the petitioner-appellant filed CWP No. 8139 of 2010 before this Court seeking compassionate appointment of her son. 3. The learned Single Judge has found that the claim of the petitioner-appellant is devoid of merit in view of the observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 481 and Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharastra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein their Lordships’ of Ho’ble the Supreme Court have held that compassionate appointment after a period of 12 years is impermissible. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant we are of the considered view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Apart from the observations made by the learned Single on the basis of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it is equally well settled that the compassionate appointment is not a mode of entry into service but it is only to help 2 L.P.A. No. 1553 of 2010 (O&M) the surviving members of the family to overcome sudden financial crisis created by the sudden death of the bread winner, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of National Hydro Electric Power Corpn. v. Nanak Chand, (2004) 12 SCC 487 and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalal, JT 1996 (9) SC 197. Such an appointment cannot be secured as a matter of right as it is an exception to Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The husband of the petitioner-appellant expired on 20.12.1998. It cannot be concluded that the situation created by the death of husband of the petitioner-appellant is still prevailing and continuing. There is, thus, no merit in the instant appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) March 8, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor 3