IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION 4623 OF 2007
DECIDED ON :July 14,2008
Gurbinder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
The Finance Secretary, U.T. & others
....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present: Mr.R.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Maninder,
Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr.H.S.Giani, Advocate, for the respondents
AJAY TEWARI, J
The petitioner has challenged the orders of the respondent dated 24-
05-2006 declining the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate
grounds merely on the ground that there was no vacancy within the ceiling of 5%.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the letter dated 23-
07-2001 of the respondents themselves whereby the ceiling of 5% have been
permitted to be exceeded in certain circumstances. He has also averred that there
are certain vacancies against which the petitioner can be appointed.
In our opinion, the claim of the petitioner must fail. This Court has
held in U.T. Chandigarh versus Sandeep Kumar & others in CWP 1186-CAT of
2004 as follows :-
“The appointment on compassionate ground is not a
right with the dependents of the deceased employee. The
appointment on compassionate ground can be claimed
–2–
only in terms of the Policy instructions issued from time
to time. The Central Government vide circular dated 09-
10-1998, has framed the Policy for appointment on
compassionate ground and fixed 5% vacancies meant for
direct recruits to be filled up from amongst the
dependents of the deceased employee. Any larger
percentage for appointment on compassionate ground
will be in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, as all eligible persons desirous of
public employment had to be given an opportunity to
compete for appointment against the public post in
accordance with law.
and
The instructions dated 23-07-2001 created
exception in respect of 5% quota in the Electricity,
Transport and Police Department. The exception
created in respect of employees of such department is in
respect of those department employees, who die while in
active duty. The active duty in not during the period of
relationship of employer and employee between the
deceased and the State, but when the employee dies
during the course of his employment actually working for the
department. The policy for appointment on compassionate
ground is otherwise applicable to the dependents of the
employee who dies before attaining the age of
superannuation.”
–3–
In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this petition and the same is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
[Ajay Tewari]
Judge
sd/-
[Hemant Gupta]
Judge
July 14,2008
*MandeepKaur*