Civil Writ Petition No. 17233 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17233 of 2009 Date of decision: Rajesh Kumar .........Petitioner vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Sector-17, Chandigarh through its Registrar & others .......Respondents CORAM: - HONB'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: - Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. O.S. Batalvi, Advocate for respondent No. 2. .......... 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ........... M.M.KUMAR, J. The order of the Central Administrative (Tribunal) dated 21.7.2009 (for brevity the 'Tribunal') passed in O.A. No. 176/CH of 2008 is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition filed at the instance of the applicant/petitioner. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The name of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was recommended on 1.12.2006 after he lost his father on 24.8.2005. His name was kept on the seniority list by the respondents and as per the instructions dated 5.5.2003, his name was deleted from the waiting list after expiry of period of three years. The Tribunal has taken the view that there was no legal infirmity in deleting the name of the petitioner from the seniority list maintained for offering appointment on compassionate Civil Writ Petition No. 17233 of 2009 2 ground. The policy dated 5.5.2003 has been placed on record as Mark -A. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no exception is provided to interfere in the view taken by the Tribunal. The compassionate appointment are essentially exception to the equality clause which are permitted to enable the loosing family to overcome a sudden crisis created by the sudden death of a bread earner. It is not an alternative source of employment as is now well settled. The arguments of the learned counsel that the policy dated 5.5.2003 would result in virtual denial of compassionate appointment has failed to impress us because as long as, the name of the petitioner has remained in the waiting list and a vacancy suitable to his qualification could have been offered. The name of such a person cannot be kept on the seniority list for all times to come. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition does not merit admission and consequently, the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) 9.2.2010 JUDGE preeti