CWP No. 3102 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.M. No.12417 of 2007 and CWP No. 3102 of 2004 Date of Decision: 7.8.2007 Pamesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S. Bedi. Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurminder Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondents. ... J.S. Khehar, J.(Oral). CM No.12417 of 2007. CM is allowed. Affidavit is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CWP No.3102 of 2004. Learned counsel for the respondents disputes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 19.12.2002 is a non speaking order. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the following criteria has been laid down for grant of employment on compassionate grounds in case of a government employee, who has been retired from government service on medical grounds:- CWP No. 3102 of 2004 2 “Compassionate appointments to a dependent in the case of Government employee retired from Government service on medical ground may be considered only in exceptional cases when the competent authority is satisfied that the condition of family is indigent and is in great distress.” Learned counsel for the respondents relying on the aforesaid criteria states, that the solitary condition for grant of employment on compassionate ground in the case of a dependent of an employee, who has been retired from government service on medical ground is that “.... the condition of family is indigent and is in great distress.” According to the learned counsel, therefore, the finding recorded in the impugned order dated 19.12.2002, is to the effect that the petitioner does not satisfy the solitary condition that the family of the petitioner is indigent and is in great distress. Learned counsel for the respondents in order to substantiate that the petitioner does not fulfil the aforesaid solitary condition for the grant of employment on compassionate grounds, emphatically relies on the financial position of the petitioner's family depicted in paragraph 1 of the preliminary objections which reads as under:- “It is submitted that the Punjab Govt. while issuing policy regarding grant of employment in the State services on compassionate ground vide their letter No.11/27/94-2PPI/2364, dated 5.2.1996 have specifically mentioned that compassionate appointment to a dependent in the case of Govt. employee retired from Govt. service on medical grounds may be considered only in exceptional cases when the competent authority is satisfied that the condition of the family is in CWP No. 3102 of 2004 3 indigent and is in great distress. Accordingly the case of the petitioner was strictly considered in accordance with the above said instructions of the State Govt. dated 5-2-1996 (Annexure P-2) and it was found that the father of the petitioner is an Senior Laboratory Technician working at General Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh and earning a monthly salary of Rs. 10230/- as per information derived from the office record of General Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh pertaining to the month November, 2001 which can be considered sufficient for running the family in a good manner.” In order to repudiate the factual position depicted in paragraph 1 of the preliminary objection, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 3.8.2007. The affidavit of the petitioner discloses the following factual position:- “1. That the educational qualification of the deponent is 10+2, who is an unemployed. 2. That the total family income of the deponent is Rs. 5,800/- per month, which comes in the shape of pension of his retired mother. The above said amount of Rs. 5,800/- per month has been started w.e.f. 12.1.2001 and apart from this there has been no addition in the family income of the deponent. The mother of the deponent was paralysed on 29.8.1998 and subsequently she was retired from her service on medical grounds. 3. That the father of the deponent is living separately and does not continue anything from his salary. There has been no financial help from the father of the deponent ever since. CWP No. 3102 of 2004 4 4. That the marriage of the deponent was soleminsed on 21.2.2001 and is having 2 children who are school going and the total monthly school fees of the children of the deponent is Rs. 1,250/- 5. That the mother of the deponent is 60% paralysed and about Rs. 2,000/- to 2,500/- per month are incurred on her medical treatment. The sister of the deponent was got married on 13.2.2005 but there are some unavoidable expenses which have to be incurred by the deponent towards his sister from time to time.” It is apparent from the factual position emerging out of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, as well as, the affidavit filed by the petitioner, that it is not disputed, that the father of the petitioner has a carry home wages of approximately Rs.10230/- per month. It is not possible for us to accept a bald statement made at the hands of the petitioner, that the father of the petitioner lives separately and does not contribute any funds for the family. This conclusion of ours is based on the factual position acknowledged in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein the fact, that the petitioner soleminsed his marriage after the retirement of his father on 13.8.1999 stands acknowledged. It also stands acknowledged, that the petitioner has two school going children, besides the fact, that the marriage of the petitioner's sister was recently soleminsed on 13.2.2005. The so called accounts statement depicted in the affidavit does not take into consideration the expenses incurred for the day to day living of the petitioner and the other members of his family, as well as, the expenses incurred on the marriage of the petitioner's sister. CWP No. 3102 of 2004 5 Accordingly, it is not possible for us to accept the assertion at the hands of the petitioner, that the conclusion drawn by the respondents in the impugned order dated 19.12.2002 to the effect, that the petitioner does not satisfy the criterion laid down for grant of employment on compassionate grounds in case of government employee who had been retired from service on medical grounds, is not justified. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge. ( M.M.S. Bedi ) Judge. 07.08.2007 sk.