LPA No. 1101 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 1101 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.10.2009 Bikramjit Singh ....Appellant. Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). The only issue which arises for consideration in the instant Letters Patent Appeal is, whether the scheme for compassionate appointment issued on 5.2.2003 (Annexure P-4) would cover the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father in harness. The instant claim raised by the appellant was adjudicated upon by this Court on 23.7.2009 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant bearing No.10178 of 2008, was dismissed. It is not a matter of dispute, that the scheme Annexure P-4 defines the category of employees on whose death in harness, a dependent is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. So far as the work charged employees are concerned, the scheme extends the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds only to “confirmed work charged LPA No. 1101 of 2009 2 staff”. The learned Single Judge while disposing of Civil Writ Petition No.10178 of 2008, arrived at the conclusion, that the father of the appellant who had died in harness, was not a confirmed work charged employee. It is this issue adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge, which is the cause of filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that the father of the appellant was inducted into the service of the respondents on 10.10.1985 on work charged basis, and that, having rendered 22 years of service, he died in harness on 29.1.2007. On account of the fact, that the appellant’s father had rendered 22 years of service, he must, according to the learned counsel, be deemed to be a confirmed work charged employee. We have considered the sole contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no justification offered by the learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of which such an inference, as has been suggested by him noticed in the foregoing paragraph, can be drawn. Neither any policy instruction nor any rule has been brought to our notice, on the basis of which, on account of the length of service rendered by the father of the appellant, it can be inferred that he is liable to be treated as a confirmed work charged employee. In the absence of any such material, no such inference, as has been suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant, can be drawn. Since it is not possible to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant’s father was a confirmed work charged employee, we are afraid that the policy instructions relied upon by the appellant can not be extended to him. LPA No. 1101 of 2009 3 For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant appeal, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Since the main appeal has been disposed of on merits, it is not necessary for us to pass any formal order on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge ( Mehinder Singh Sullar ) Judge 27.10.2009 sk.