LPA No. 1138 of 2011 (O&M -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1138 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 11, 2011 Haryana State Seed Certification Agency …Appellant Versus Om Son and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Dr. Surya Parkash, 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. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 17.11.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the order dated 16.01.2009 (P-2) was liable to be set aside. The basic reason for rejecting the claim made by the writ petitioner-respondents for compassionate appointment given in the order dated 16.01.2009 (P-2) was that there was no post for appointing the writ petitioner- respondents on compassionate basis. However, in the reply to the writ petition, it was admitted that there were 32 posts under Group-D and by order dated 16.01.2009, the claim made by the LPA No. 1138 of 2011 (O&M -2- writ petitioner-respondents was rejected by the appellant by observing that there was no post of Beldar (Group-D) available. The learned Single Judge found that the respondents had not taken into consideration the total strength of Group-D post for the purpose of compassionate appointment as per the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (for brevity 'the Rules'). According to the Rules, the compassionate appointment is to be given within 5% quota against the sanctioned post under Group-C and D categories. Accordingly, directions have been issued to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by taking into consideration the total cadre strength of Class IV posts as in existence at the time of consideration. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that no exception is provided to interfere in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The case of the writ petitioner-respondent has to be considered in accordance with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and it cannot rejected on the ground that no sanctioned post under category 'D' were available whereas the total strength of Class IV posts as in existence at the time of consideration was required to be taken into account. 3. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. LPA No. 1138 of 2011 (O&M -3- 4. In view of the dismissal of appeal on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 181 days in filing of the instant appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 11, 2011 Atul