IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:7916/2008 Decided on:21.4.2009 Surinder Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The father of the petitioner was employed in the Police Department as Constable. He died on 2.11.1973. The petitioner passed +2 examinations in the year 1994. He attained the age of 25 years on 19.6.1999. It appears that initially his mother had applied for compassionate appointment; however, in the year 1997, she sought appointment for her son. The representation made by his mother was rejected by the competent authority on 17.8.2000. Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client ought to have been appointed on compassionate basis after the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 death of his father in the year 1973. He then argued that initially his client was paid pension, but when he attained the age of 25 years in the year 1996, the same was stopped. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner cannot be offered appointment after 36 years of the death of his father. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner’s father died in the year 1973. He was granted pension after the death of his father. He was in receipt of pension till 1999. He attained the age of 25 years in the year 1999. The representation made by his mother has rightly been rejected by the competent authority on the ground of delay. The purpose of granting the compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship immediately after the death of the bread earner. In the present case the death has occurred in the year 1973. Thereafter the mother was granted pension and after her re-marriage, her sons Rupinder Singh and Jatinder Singh were granted the pension. They attained the age of 25 years in the year 1998 and 1990, respectively. Thereafter the petitioner was granted pension on 3.6.1990 up to 20.6.1999. The general trend as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is that the cases of compassionate appointment should be considered at the earliest after the death of bread earner. In these circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to get the appointment on compassionate ground after 36 years of the death of his father. The family was already getting pension. The petitioner had also received pension with effect from 3.6.1990 to 20.6.1999. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.G. (Karmik) and others versus Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162 have held that 3 appointment on compassionate ground is given only to meet the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. Their Lordships have further held that the idea is not to provide for endless compassion. Their Lordships have held as under: “7. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.” In view of the aforesaid reasoning there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 21.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*