IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8972 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.09.2011 Manish Arora ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. KPS Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S.Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) The father of the petitioner was Maths Master in the Education Department, Punjab when he unfortunately died while in service on 19.08.1997. The mother of the petitioner was and is admittedly in Government service working as Hindi Mistress. The petitioner has been denied appointment on compassionate ground by the respondents on the plea that the said ex-gratia benefit is meant to enable the family to over come the financial crisis and where one of the family member is already in government service the non-existent of such crisis can be safely inferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that there was no such condition laid down in the 1986 Ex-gratia policy of the Government and there are several instances where the dependents of deceased government employees have been given appointments on compassionate grounds despite the spouse of such deceased employees already in government services. CWP No.8972 of 2010 [2] Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that keeping in view the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana V. Umesh Kumar Nagpal and others 1994(4) Supreme Court Cases 138, no direction for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground can be issued by this Court. However, if the authorities have made appointments in relaxation of their policy, the petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue his case before the competent authority. With these observations and liberties, the petition stands disposed of. 23.09.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE