IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15908 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 15, 2009 Paramjit Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Dr. S.P. Shori, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-State to issue letter of appointment favouring the petitioner for the post of Clerk in Education Department. It has been pleaded that husband of the petitioner namely Jarnail Singh, served Indian Army. While on active duty in `Operation Pawan’ in Sri Lanka, husband of the petitioner was wounded and finally expired on 27.9.1994. The petitioner is eligible for the post of Clerk. It has further been asserted that the petitioner has CWP No.15908 of 2009 [2] heavy responsibility of her in laws and family members. The petitioner applied for the post of Clerk on 4.6.2003 vide application, Annexure P-1. Thereafter, the petitioner has been pursuing her case, however, relief has not been granted. Impugned order, Annexure P-2, has been passed on 9.8.2006 thereby holding that case of the petitioner does not fall within the four corners of provisions or instructions issued on this issue. Learned counsel contends that against Order, Annexure P-2, Secretary of the Department has been approached. I have considered the contention of learned counsel. Husband of the petitioner died in the year 1994. The petitioner, for the first time, filed an application for appointment in June 2003. Order, Annexure P-2, mentions various instructions and conditions on which such cases can be considered. Essentially, the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the application ought to have been filed within five years of death of the family member. Having considered the grounds taken by the respondents, I find no illegality in the CWP No.15908 of 2009 [3] approach of the respondents. Essentially, the petitioner prays for appointment on compassionate or exceptional ground in view of death of her husband while serving in Indian Army. The condition applied viz. the fact that for a claim of 1994 the application was filed in the year 2003 i.e. after a considerable delay, appears to be reasonable. Merely because the petitioner has approached the Secretary, would not entitle the petitioner to any relief in so much as the petitioner has not made the claim under statutory rules. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) October 15, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?