IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 10178 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 23, 2009 BIKRAMJIT SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. This Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 24.1.2008 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Chief Engineer, Satluj Yamuna Link Canal Project (Construction), Punjab, whereby the claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing in regard to Civil Writ Petition No. 10178 of 2008 2 the prayer made above, contends that father of petitioner was working as Assistant Laboratory Attendant on Work-charge basis since 10.10.1985. He died on 29.1.2007, leaving behind his wife and two school going children. The mother of the petitioner made a representation to the respondents that because there was no other earning hand in the family, the case for appointment of her son be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents did not respond to the representation, whereupon, a legal notice was got served. Vide order dated 24.1.2008 (Annexure P-3), however, the claim has been denied by saying that instructions dated 21.11.2002, issued by the State of Punjab, provide for consideration of cases of Government servants who have been appointed on regular basis and not on Work-charge/daily basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure P-4 i.e. the Scheme adopted by the respondent-State for appointment on compassionate grounds. Notes II and III thereto read as under:- “NOTE-II Government Servant for the purpose of these instructions means a Govt. servant appointed on regular basis and not one working on daily wage or casual apprentice or adhoc or contract or re-employment on 89 days basis. NOTE-III Confirmed Worked Charged Staff will also be covered by the terms Government Servant mentioned in Note II above.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to make out a case that the father of the petitioner, having worked for 22 years, is required to be considered as being a member of the confirmed Work-Charged staff. Civil Writ Petition No. 10178 of 2008 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has not been able to show by way of any document that the services of the father of the petitioner had been confirmed. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, while opposing the case of the petitioner, states that services of the father of the petitioner had not been confirmed. It has further been pointed out that although there is a reference in the writ petition to CWP 1287 of 2003, in which certain employees had made a prayer for regularisation, which had been allowed, however, the father of the petitioner was not one of the petitioners therein and, therefore, no benefit therefrom can be claimed. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has also argued that because the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds does not fall within the four corners of the provisions of the Scheme, the petitioner cannot claim appointment in that category. No other prayer has been made and no other argument has been raised. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The issue of appointment on compassionate grounds has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in General Manager, State Bank of India and others v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 475. In the said case, appointment on compassionate ground was not given on the ground that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the deceased during his period of service and he was punished. The ground taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was that Civil Writ Petition No. 10178 of 2008 4 denial of appointment on compassionate ground in view of earlier punishment already suffered by the employee would result in double jeopardy or dual punishment. While considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that appointment on compassionate ground is a concession in favour of dependents of the deceased employee. While holding that reasons for denying benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds are good, in para-31 the scope of appointment on compassionate ground has been considered. Para-31 reads as under:- “31. We are of the view that both the Courts were wrong in granting relief to the writ petitioner. Appointment on compassionate ground is never considered a right of a person. In fact, such appointment is violative of rule of equality enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. As per settled law, when any appointment is to be made in Government or semi-Government or in public office, cases of all eligible candidates must be considered alike. That is the mandate of Article 14. Normally, therefore, the State or its instrumentality making any appointment to public office, cannot ignore such mandate. At the same time, however, in certain circumstances, appointment on compassionate ground of dependents of deceased employee is considered inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee may not starve. The primary object of such scheme is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to death of sole bread earner. It is thus an exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source Civil Writ Petition No. 10178 of 2008 5 of employment.” In view of the fact that the respondents have framed rules/scheme for regulating appointment on compassionate ground and the case of the petitioner does not fall within the scope of the provisions of the scheme, I find no ground to interfere, particularly in view of the fact that it is not the right of the petitioner to be appointed and such appointment is violative of rule of equality granted under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. July 23, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?