IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.904 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.01.2011 Anurag Mohindra ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Vidyut Prasarn Corporation Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner to an extent is an unfortunate person, who lost his father on 13.012.1997. The petitioner had a qualification of B.Com with computer course. As per the policy framed by the respondents, the petitioner was eligible for ex-gratia appointment. Father of the petitioner was drawing a scale of Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The petitioner was offered an appointment of LDC under ex-gratia scheme. His grievance is that this offer was made to him without considering his qualification and the policy applicable. Counsel would refer to the policy of ex-gratia appointment followed by the respondents to say that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed at one grade lower than the grade enjoyed by his father. Counsel for the petitioner contends that he was eligible for appointment as UDC instead of LDC. Concededly the petitioner had accepted this offer when made to him in the year 1998. The petitioner had continued to serve Civil Writ Petition No.904 of 2010 -2- as LDC and his turn came for promotion to the post of UDC in the year 2004. The petitioner was promoted as UDC in 2006. Even thereafter, the petitioner has slept over his rights for too long. The petitioner has now filed writ petition to pray that he should have been appointed as UDC in the year 1998 after 13 years. The petitioner pleads that the initial appointment given to him of LDC was bad. The prayer is that he should now be given appointment of UDC w.e.f. 1998 with all the consequential benefits. The petitioner has woken up from his slumber too late. Appointment was offered and accepted nearly 13 years ago. The petitioner, in the meantime, has also been promoted as UDC. The petitioner was appointed by showing compassion and has been given appointment on compassionate basis. He was, thus, not required to compete for getting the job. He has enjoyed the advantage compared to hundred, if not thousands, who were aspiring for jobs. The petitioner deserved the compassion due to the death of his father. The compassion generally is shown to a person to tide over difficult time or situation in which one may be placed because of death of bread earner. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1998. Such requirement, if any, was in the year 1998. In the year 2011, the petitioner certainly cannot plead any compassion for seeking any appointment to tide over any difficulty. For compassionate appointment rights are not to be determined. No case for interference in the prayer made in the writ petition, therefore, is made out. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. January 20, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE