Civil Writ Petition No.22534 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ No.22534 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.12.2010 Vinod Kumar ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Gurmandeep Singh Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against order dated 27.7.2010 (P-13) rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, the `Tribunal') dismissing his Original Application. The relief for compassionate appointment having been denied, he has approached this Court with a prayer for setting aside the same. The case of the petitioner was considered by the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices for compassionate appointment and it was found that the petitioner is not an indigent person in comparison to other cases, which were approved and kept in the list of reconsideration. It is well settled that compassionate appointments are not a substitute for regular appointments which have to answer the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. The compassionate appointment is given only in a case Civil Writ Petition No.22534 of 2010 (O&M) 2 where there is a dire need and on the sudden death of the bread earner of the family, a financial crisis arose to the bereaved family members. It has been found as a fact that the petitioner is not an indigent person and therefore, no compassionate appointment could be given to him. The Tribunal has upheld the view taken by the Departmental Authorities and has rightly rejected the claim made by the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel, we are of the considered view that there is no room for interference. It is well settled proposition of law that compassionate appointment has to be given to such persons who are indigent to such an extent that they can not make both ends meet. In that regard, reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of the Hindustan Aeronatical Ltd. v. A.Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 3 S.C.C. 394, National Hydro Electric Power Corporation v. Nanak Chand, (2004) 12 S.C.C. 487, State of Manipur v. Mohd. Rajaodin, (2003) 7, S.C.C. 511 and Commissioner of Public Instructor v. K.R. Vishwanath, (2005) 7 S.CC. 2006. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. Dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( RITU BAHRI ) 17.12.2010 JUDGE VK