Civil Writ Petition No. 8299 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 8299 of 2006 Decided on : 16-03-2009 Amit Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA. Present:- Mr. D.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. AJAI LAMBA, J(Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure P-3), order dated 30.8.2004 (Annexure P-4), order dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 23.4.2005 (Annexure P-6). It has been brought out that father of the petitioner namely Parshotam Lal had died on 14.11.2001 while he was working as Daftri with respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The petitioner applied for Civil Writ Petition No. 8299 of 2006 -2- appointment on compassionate grounds. The date of application has, however, not been indicated in the petition. Be that as it may, the prayer for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected vide order dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure P-3). The ground taken by the respondents is that the whole object of the scheme of granting appointment on compassionate grounds is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. Each and every dependent of an employee cannot be allowed appointment on compassionate ground. The quota prescribed for appointment on compassionate ground is only 5% of the total direct recruitment vacancies in a year in Group C & D posts. The status of the family of the father of the petitioner was taken into account. It has been considered by the respondents that family of the petitioner was paid terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.3,29,712/-, other than monthly pension and dearness allowance, etc. It seems that the petitioner kept on pursuing the case, however, the repeated prayers met the same fate. Learned counsel for the respondents has also made reference to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. Sate of Haryana and others, Civil Writ Petition No. 8299 of 2006 -3- J.T. 1994(4) SCC 138. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the case of respondent No.4, even after rejection of the claim has been reconsidered and appointment on compassionate ground allowed. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the parties. Since the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner have been considered and a reasoned order has been passed, as noticed hereinabove, I do not find that the petitioner can claim any parity with respondent No.4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Managing Director MMTC Ltd. Vs. Pramoda Dei alias Nayak, 1997(11) SCC 390, has held that object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis and is not to provide employment. It has further been held that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment. Similar is the import of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case to which the reference has been made above. Considering the fact that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, in the context of the circumstances Civil Writ Petition No. 8299 of 2006 -4- faced by the family of the petitioner had been considered and rejected and also considering the fact that the father of the petitioner died way back in 2001, no ground for invoking the writ jurisdiction has been made out in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Pramoda Dei's case (supra) and Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case (supra). Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 16th March, 2009. (Ajai Lamba) Monika Judge