IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 9817 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.1.2010. Vikash and another --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Aggrieved of the order dated 28.4.2009 passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana, rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction for compassionate appointment. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that father of the petitioner namely Nafe Singh died on 2.11.1992 in harness leaving behind the petitioner as his son and widow respectively. Admittedly, the petitioner no.1 was minor at the time of death of his father. The date of birth of petitioner is 8.7.1987. Petitioner no.2 mother of petitioner no.1 applied for entering the name of the petitioner into the register of employment maintained for the purpose vide her letter dated 13.1.1993. Even when the petitioner attained the age of majority no action was taken by the respondents. The petitioner was, however, informed vide letter dated 28.4.2009 (Annexure P-3) that according to Govt. instructions dated 22.3.1999 the job under ex-gratia scheme can be provided, if, the minor dependent at the time of death becomes major during the time limit of CWP. No. 9817 of 2009 -2- 3 years. The claim of the petitioner no.1 was accordingly rejected as time barred. Petitioners have challenged this order in the present writ petition seeking a further direction to appoint the petitioner no.1 under the ex-gratia scheme. The claim of the petitioners is, however, resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the claim could be decided only, if, the dependent becomes eligible for job within three years under ex-gratia scheme. It is also stated that there is no provision under the ex-gratia scheme to reserve any post for the dependents of the deceased employee. Further statement made in the reply is that now the policy has been changed, whereunder no ex-gratia appointment is permissible, hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. It is admitted case of the parties that at the time of death of the deceased employee petitioner no.1 was about four years of age. He was not eligible for any appointment. Petitioner no.2 the mother of petitioner no.1 applied for entering the name of petitioner no.1 in the register maintained but she never sought any employment for herself. The question of grant of compassionate appointment has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in a number of judgements. Right from the judgement of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana reported as 1994 (4) SCC 138, the law has been consistent that the compassionate appointment is not another source of recruitment. The only object and purpose of the compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial aid to the family in penuary. In case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported as 1994(3) SCT 174 following observations have CWP. No. 9817 of 2009 -3- been made:- “ However, it is now a well settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the Public Sector Undertaking is to see that the dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.” In case of General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. v. Kunti Tiwary & Anr. Reported as (2004) 7 SCC, 271, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “ Appointments in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, exceptions are made in favour of dependents of employees dying in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood.” In case of State of J & K & Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir reported as 2006 (3) SCT 598 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question of delay in the matter and held as under:- “ 16. Furthermore, about 12 years have passed. Appellant's son is aged about 20 years and daughter is aged about 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.” Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgements, it is found that it is now more than 17 years since the Govt. employee died. At this stage, the petitioner no.1 cannot be granted compassionate appointment, the family must have generated source of income particularly when the petitioner no.1 has become major and is capable of seeking employment or vocation. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 13.1.2010. lucky