HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.7192 of 2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.12.2010 **** Gurdarshan Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Vinod Arya, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the memo dated 30.09.2000 (Annexure P7) whereby his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been turned down by respondent No.4/Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd, Milk Plant, SAS Nagar Mohali. (2). The petitioner claims himself to be the adopted son of Labh Singh who was employed as a Dairyman-cum- Helper by respondent NO.4 which is a Cooperative Society of Milk Producers. It is averred that the petitioner was adopted by Labh Singh by way of a registered adoption deed dated 17.01.1994 and this fact has been duly acknowledged by the respondents. The retiral/terminal benefits due to the death of Labh Singh CWP No.7192 of 2001.doc - 2 – are also said to have been paid to the petitioner being the sole legal heir. (3). The record reveals that the petitioner was born on 30.09.1981 and is Middle pass. His adopted father Labh Singh died in harness on 1st April 1994 i.e. soon after the petitioner was adopted. The record further reveals that it was on 07.03.2000 that the petitioner moved an application for employment on compassionate grounds which was turned down by the 4th respondent vide the impugned order dated 30.09.2000 (Annexure P7). (4). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the record. (5). In my considered view, owing to the fact that over 26 years have passed after the death of Labh Singh and the petitioner is also now more than 30 years old, it is difficult to believe that the petitioner or his family has not been able to sustain themselves for want of employment and/or that they were totally dependent upon the deceased who was working as a Class IV employee. In the backdrop of the academic qualification possessed by the petitioner, he can at the best be employed as a manual labour, namely, a job for which he need not be necessarily employed with the respondent-Society. CWP No.7192 of 2001.doc - 3 – (6). It appears that the petitioner does not satisfy the test of extreme hardship for his employment on compassionate grounds. No case for interference with the impugned order is made out. (7). Dismissed. 01.12.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE