IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3383/2009 Decided on:6.10.2009 Chetan Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, A.C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma Dy. A.G. for respondent. The present petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel of the parties. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner’s father who was working as a Forest Guard with the respondent-corporation died on 8.9.1996. The petitioner’s mother Smt. Nila Devi made representation to the respondent-corporation seeking appointment on compassionate basis for her son. The case of the petitioner was considered and ultimately rejected on 4.12.2008. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 We are of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order dated 4.12.2008. In the present case the petitioner’s father has died on 8.9.1996. 13 years have elapsed. The purpose of granting appointment on compassionate ground is to tide over the crisis immediately after the death of bread earner. The circumstances have changed within a period of 13 years and accordingly the respondents cannot be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited versus Anil Badyakar and others, AIR 2009 SC 2534 have held that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same cannot be claimed long after death of employee in harness. Their Lordships have held as under: “19. The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crises is over. In the instant case the employee died in harness in the year 1981 and after a long squabble by the dependents of the deceased, they arrived at a settlement that the son-in-law of the second daughter who is unemployed may request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The request so made was accepted by the Personnel Manager of the Company subject to the approval of the Director of the Company. The Director (P), who is the competent authority for post facto approval, keeping in view the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment has cancelled the provisional appointment on the ground that nearly after 12 years from the date of death of the employee such an appointment could not have been offered to the so-called dependent of the deceased employee. In our considered view, the decision of the employer was in 3 consonance with the Umesh Kumar Nagpal’s case (1994 AIR SCW 2305) and the same should not have been interfered with by the High Court. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice. (Rajiv Sharma), 6.10.2009 Judge. *Awasthi*