IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.912 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: April 16, 2009 Mohinder Pal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Union of India & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Chander, Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) C.M. No.6643 of 2009 Application is allowed. Written statement is taken on record. C.W.P. No.912 of 2009 This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of directions to the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner under the Ex-Gratia Scheme of the Government on account of in-service death of father of the petitioner. It has been brought out that Mr. G.D. Mehmy, father of the petitioner, was employed as CWP No.912 of 2009 [2] Section Officer and died in harness on 5.2.2003. The petitioner i.e. son of the deceased, being responsible for family responsibilities and the family having no source of income, applied for appointment on compassionate ground. It has also been brought out that brother of the petitioner namely Ajit Kumar, applied for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the request was declined on the ground that he had failed in passing 10th class and therefore, could not be given any appointment. Brother of the petitioner, accordingly, gave up the claim and the petitioner made a fresh claim. The claim has been rejected vide Order dated 5.3.2008, Annexure P-3. Legal notice was served which however has been rejected. In Para 8 of the petition, the benefits given on account of death of father of the petitioner have been detailed. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that family of the petitioner has received sufficient help monetarily alongwith family pension. The delay in claim itself dis-entitles the petitioner and the family to appointment on compassionate ground. I have considered the issue. Perusal of Annexure P-3 indicates that the respondents informed the petitioner that appointment in Intelligence Bureau, on compassionate ground, could not be given and the case has been CWP No.912 of 2009 [3] examined by headquarters. In response to the legal notice, the respondents have informed the petitioner of the monetary benefits given to the family on account of death of father of the petitioner and the reasons for not giving appointment on compassionate ground. Reference to the pleadings indicates that on the death of the father of the petitioner, the family received terminal dues amounting to Rs.7,60,197/- and family pension @ Rs.4,050/- per month. It further indicates that the family owns a 2 marla plot. It has been brought out on behalf of the respondents that case of the petitioner was considered by Compassionate Appointment Committee on 21.3.2005 as per the norms prescribed in Government Instructions dated 9.10.1998. The Committee, however, did not find the case fit for compassionate appointment. Earlier the claim of younger brother of the petitioner was examined. The family has survived after death of father of the petitioner for a considerable period which, also disentitles the petitioner to compassionate appointment. In the above regards, reference may be made to judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Managing Director, MMTC Ltd., New Delhi & Another vs. Pramoda Dei Alias Nayak, (1997) 11 SCC 390. The following needs to be noticed from Para 4 thereof:- “4. Shri Harish Salve, the learned Senior Counsel CWP No.912 of 2009 [4] appearing for the appellants, has submitted that under Rule 18 a discretion has been given to the Chairman/Director (Personnel) in the matter of appointment of a direct dependant of a regular employee of MMTC who dies in harness or is permanently disabled while in the service of MMTC and that the High Court was not justified in issuing a writ directing the appellants to give a rehabilitation appointment to the respondent and all that could be done was that the High Court would have directed the competent authority to consider the matter of giving rehabilitation appointment to the respondent. In support of the said submission, Shri Salve has invited our attention to the recent decision of this Court in LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambedkar, (1994) 2 SCC 718 wherein this Court was considering the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 providing for appointment on compassionate grounds and it was held that the Court should not have directed appointment on compassionate grounds that it could have merely directed consideration of the claim of the dependant of the deceased employee. We find considerable merit in the said submission of Shri Salve. In our opinion, Rule 18 of the Rules confers a discretion on the Chairman/Director (Personnel) to appoint a direct dependant of a regular employee who dies in harness or is permanently disabled while in the service. It is no doubt true that this discretion is not an unfettered discretion and has to be exercised reasonably after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that rehabilitation appointment has to be given in all cases where it becomes due because of death of an employee in harness or by his permanent disability and it can be refused only in certain circumstances as indicated by the High Court. In our opinion, the discretion of the competent authority cannot be thus fettered. As pointed out by this Court, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment and that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment (See; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138). Ineligibility, incapacity or unsuitability of the person seeking employment are no doubt relevant considerations but they cannot be regarded as exhaustive.....” Perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case indicates that father of the petitioner died on 5.2.2003. The family has survived for 6 years. The terminal dues received by the family also indicate that the family is not in any financial crisis. The object of compassionate appointment is CWP No.912 of 2009 [5] to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. Mere death of an employee does not entitles the family to compassionate appointment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for judicial review of the order passed by the respondents is made out in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The action of the respondents in declining the request of the petitioner cannot be termed as arbitrary. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 16, 2009 JUDGE avin