IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 2403 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.2.2010. Fateh Ram --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The father of the petitioner died on 7.8.1986 when the petitioner was minor. The petitioner became major somewhere in the year 1995. Earlier the mother of the petitioner had applied for compassionate employment in the year 1986. After the petitioner became major, the mother of the petitioner filed an affidavit for giving employment to the petitioner. It is stated that the respondents have not taken any decision. It is almost 24 years now when the deceased employee died. At this belated stage no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported as 1994(3) SCT 174 made following observations :- “ 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.” CWP. No. 2403 of 2010 -2- In case of General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. v. Kunti Tiwary & Anr. Reported as (2004) 7 SCC, 271, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “ Appointments in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, exceptions are made in favour of dependents of employees dying in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood.” In case of State of J & K & Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir reported as 2006 (3) SCT 598 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question of delay in the matter and held as under:- “ 16. Furthermore, about 12 years have passed. Appellant's son is aged about 20 years and daughter is aged about 16 years. Therefore, they have become major. Appellant herself would be aged about 38 years now. She cannot be given any appointment at this age.” In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgements, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 10.2.2010. lucky