JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. Petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 26.4.2000 (Annexure P.5) whereby the appointment of the petitioner on priority basis on account of death of her father on account of terrorists violence was declined.
2. Sh. Nachhattar Singh, father of the petitioner was killed by terrorists on 3.2.1990. Petitioner has moved an application on 4.2.1998 for appointment on priority basis in terms of policy of the State Government dated 8.8.1996 (Annexure R1) for giving appointment to one of the family members of the terrorists victim family. The petitioner stated that she could not apply immediately after the death of her father as she was got married and thereafter her mother suffered an attack of paralysis. Since petitioner had to reside with her mother, therefore, her matrimonial relations with her husband were severed.
3. The State Government has framed a policy regarding grant of employment in Class III and Class IV posts on compassionate grounds contained in circular letter dated 24.4.1986. However, for giving compassionate appointment on Class II posts to the dependent members of the families killed in terrorists violence in the State, instructions were issued on 5/6-2-1988. However, on 11.11.1993 revised policy regarding giving compassionate appointments in all cases of the State services to the dependent member
of the families of the Government employee, killed in terrorists violence or who died in harness while in service was issued rescinding earlier policy dated 5/6.2.1988. However, subsequent to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nogpal v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1994(4) S.C.C. 138 and few other judgments, the State revised its policy on 5.2.1996 (Annexure R3) wherein it was mentioned that no appointment on compassionate ground against Class I & II post should be made and for offering appointment on Class III and IV posts therein, the dependent member of the family of a persons i.e. bread winner killed or 100% physically disabled in terrorists action or by security forces acting in aid of civil power in the State can be considered. There are few other categories dependents of which are entitled to seek appointment on priority basis. It was further mentioned that while making appointment on compassionate ground only a widow or a dependent son or dependent unmarried daughter may be considered. The Clauses 5 and 6 of the said policy is relevant which read as under: –
“5. for offering appointments on Class III and IV posts on compassionate grounds, following categories of persons may be considered:-
Sr. No. Category of Persons.
(i) (i) A dependent member of the family of a persons (Bread-winner)killed or 100% physically disabled in terrorists action or by security forces acting in aid of civil power in the State”
(ii) xxxx
6. While making appointments against Class III and or IV posts out of the categories or persons mentioned above the aforesaid judgments may be kept in view and the following conditions/clarifications may be meticulously followed:-
(i) for appointment on compassionate grounds, only a widow or a dependent son or dependent unmarried daughter or adopted dependent son or adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased may be considered. This is in line with the policy of Government of India contained in their letter No. 14014/20/94-Estt.(D) dated 9th December, 1993 (copy enclosed at Annexure II)”
4. However, vide instructions dated 8.8.1996 (Annexure R1) the conditions of making an application for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of six months was amended and a period of two years was fixed for request for appointment on compassionate ground by a eligible dependent member. However, it was further stipulated that in cases where the dependent member in the family of deceased Government employee/private citizens become eligible then the request for compassionate appointment can be made within a period of six months after any of the dependent member in the family becomes eligible for compassionate appointment. The said instructions further contemplates that where the death has taken place long ago say five years such requests may be considered keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family on passing away of the bread winner. The very fact that the family has been able to manage some how all these years should normally be adequate proof to show that the family had some dependable means of subsistence.
5. In the present case. The father of the petitioner died on 3.2.1990 whereas request for appointment was made on 4.2.1998. The compassionate appointment is given to tide over immediate crises on account of sudden death. Since the father of the petitioner died 8 years ago, it cannot be said that there is any immediate requirement of the family to tide over the financial crises. Still further, the petitioner is not dependent member of the family, as admittedly, she is married. There is no dissolution of marriage by any competent Court of law. It is mentioned by the respondents that there is no dispute between the petitioner with her husband and no civil suit is pending in the Court.
6. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the order rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
7. No merit. Dismissed.
Sd/- S.S. Nijjar, J.