C.W.P.No.7653 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.7653 of 2004 Date of Decision : 03.04.2008 Jagtar Singh .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 Shri Santosh Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking to quash the order dated 18.7.2003, Annexure P-6 whereby the representation of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined. Balbir Singh, father of the petitioner, working as Senior Assistant in the respondent-Institute, died on 26.12.2002 leaving behind three sons including the petitioner and two daughters apart from his wife. He was to attain the age of superannuation on 30.4.2004. The claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was declined for the C.W.P.No.7653 of 2004 2 reason that two of the sons of the deceased Balbir Singh are in Government job. The petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P-6, declining the representation of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground, on the ground that in terms of the Government Policy dated 9.10.1998, the dependent family member of the deceased may be considered for compassionate appointment even if there is already an earning member in the family. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is required to be considered in terms of para 10 (a) of the aforesaid Government Policy. It is admitted case of the petitioner that elder brother of the petitioner is serving with the Insurance Company and is living at Kharar though separately. Similarly, another brother of the petitioner is serving in Punjab Police, but living separately at Ropar and, thus, it is alleged that the mother of the petitioner has communicated that she is living with the petitioner as her other sons are not supporting her. In reply, it has been pointed out that the deceased was to superannuate on 30.4.2004 and the request of the mother of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was considered alongwith the requests of dependents of other two employees of the PGI, who also sought appointment on compassionate ground. The cases of all the three candidates were considered and found that the families of two other employees have no earning member, whereas two brothers of the petitioner are in Government job. Thus, the dependents of other two deceased employees of the PGI were offered appointment. Subsequently, the claim of the petitioner was again C.W.P.No.7653 of 2004 3 considered in terms of the representation submitted by the mother of the petitioner. It was found that the petitioner is married and living separately with his mother at village Sahauran. It has been found that the mother of the petitioner is getting pension of Rs.4325/- per month. She has also got Death cum Retirement Gratuity to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-; G.P.F. amount of Rs.2,10,000/-; L.I.C. amount of Rs.30,000/- and Leave Eacashment of Rs.1,14,943/-. Thus, it cannot be said that the mother of the petitioner is in financial distress and requires financial assistance for sustenance. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The deceased had less than two years of service before he was to attain the age of superannuation. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the mother is getting pension of more than Rs.4,000/- per month as well as she got the benefits of gratuity, GPF, leave encashment etc. Apart from the said fact, two sons of the deceased are gainfully employed. Thus, it cannot be said that the family of the deceased is in financial distress. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court in various judgments held that the consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right. The object of offering employment on compassionate ground is only to enable the family to get over the financial crises which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner. In the present case, the family of the deceased is not facing any financial distress, rather two sons of the deceased are already in Government job and the widow of the deceased is getting pension after the death of the deceased employee. C.W.P.No.7653 of 2004 4 In view thereof, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 18.7.2003, Annexure P-6 whereby the representation of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined, which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 03-04-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE