IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 6206 of 2010 Date of Decision: 6.4.2010. Deepak Gupta --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. H.N. Khanduja, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 20.8.1998, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The father of the petitioner namely Sh. Rajinder Gupta was serving in the Education Department and died on 29.4.1998. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the then existing policy. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is in Govt. service working as J.B.T Teacher and the income of the family was more than Rs.2500/- per month. It is now 12 years that the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the aforesaid order. It is settled proposition of law that the compassionate appointment is not a source of income. The very object and purpose of the compassionate appointment is to enable the family in penuary to overcome the immediate financial needs. Apart from the question of delay, the mother of the petitioner is also in Govt. service. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported as 1994(3) SCT 174 has held as under:- CWP. No. 6206 of 2010 -2- “ 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 view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 6.4.2010. lucky