IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.19994 of 2008
Date of Decision: July 20, 2009
Narender Singh
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, for the
respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J
This civil writ petition has been
filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India praying for issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari, quashing Order 11.9.2008
(Annexure P-9) vide which the case of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment has been
rejected. Further prayer made in the petition is
for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to appoint the
petitioner on compassionate grounds on account of
CWP No.19994 of 2008 [2]
death of father of the petitioner.
Rattan Singh, father of the
petitioner was employed as Driver on daily wage
basis in the office of respondent No.3 i.e.
Executive Engineer, Field Mechanical &
Construction Production Division, Ranjit Sagar
Dam, Shahpurkandi Township, Tehsil Pathankot,
District Gurdaspur. Services of Rattan Singh were
terminated in the year 1983. The order of
termination was challenged before the Labour
Court, Gurdaspur. The Labour Court, vide Award
dated 10.3.1992 (Annexure P-1) directed
reinstatement of the father of the petitioner in
service with continuity of service and full back
wages. It seems that award of the Labour Court
was not implemented and therefore, a writ
petition was filed in this Court. During the
pendency of the writ petition, it has been
pleaded that, father of the petitioner died. The
petitioner has been impleaded in the said
petition in the place of his father. Some
directions have been issued in the writ petition
in view of an agreement between the parties.
Be that as it may, order dated
5.1.2001 (Annexure P-2) passed by this Court in
the CWP No.2121 of 1985 makes it evident that the
petitioner was held entitled to back wages for
CWP No.19994 of 2008 [3]
the period from the date when Rattan Singh was
discharged till the date of his death on
29.9.1994.
The petitioner being dependent on
his father and being the only male member, claims
to be eligible for compassionate appointment.
Application for compassionate appointment in view
of the death of his father was made. The case of
the petitioner for appointment on the said ground
has been rejected by the respondents vide
impugned order, Annexure P-9.
Impugned Order, Annexure P-9,
notices that the petitioner applied for getting
employment on 29.11.2005 which was sent to the
Head Office. The claim has been rejected in view
of the fact that services of Rattan Singh had not
been regularised and therefore, claim of his
wards cannot be considered for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
The issue of appointment on
compassionate grounds has been considered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various
judgments. While dealing with S.B.I. vs. Anju Jain, (2008)
8 SCC 475, it has been held that appointment on
compassionate ground is never considered a right
of a person. In fact, such appointment is
violative of rule of equality enshrined and
CWP No.19994 of 2008 [4]
guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
It has further been observed that the primary
object of such scheme is to save the bereaved
family from sudden financial crisis occurring due
to death of the sole bread earner. It is thus
exception to the general rule of equality and not
another independent and parallel source of
employment. Compassionate appointment is really a
concession in favour of dependents of a deceased
employee.
It is the admitted case of the
petitioner that the case of the petitioner does
not fall within the scope of the Scheme adopted
by the respondents for giving appointment on
compassionate grounds. The appointment on
compassionate grounds not being a vested right,
in my considered view, action of the respondents
does not call for interference in writ
jurisdiction.
Likewise in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of
Haryana & Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, it has been observed
that consideration for such employment is not a
vested right which can be exercised at any time
in future. The object being to enable the family
to get over the financial crisis which it faces
at the time of the death of the sole bread
winner, the compassionate employment cannot be
CWP No.19994 of 2008 [5]
claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time
and after the crisis is over.
Considering the spirit of the
purpose of appointment on compassionate ground, I
find that the case of the petitioner has no merit
in so much as father of the petitioner died in
1994. The application for appointment on
compassionate grounds itself was made in the year
2005 i.e. after 11 years. Consideration of a
person such as the petitioner would defeat the
very purpose of appointment on compassionate
ground. In view of the time already elapsed, also
I find no reason to interfere with the order
passed by the respondents.
In view of the above, the petition
is dismissed.
(AJAI LAMBA)
July 20, 2009 JUDGE
avin