Jaspal Kaur vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.—Smt. Jaspal Kaur is unfortunate widow of Shri Karar Singh and she has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus against the respondents by directing them to appoint the petitioner on some post on compassionate ground.

The case set up by the petitioner is that her husband, who was serving as a Company Commander, expired on 24th April, 1998 while he was posted in the office of respondent No. 3, after serving about 20 years. She applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 15th June, 1998. The petitioner had been approaching the authorities for her appointment and on 19th November, 1998, respondent No. 2 asked her as to whether she would like to be appointed as "Corporal Inspector or as a Clerk". On 14th December, 1998, the petitioner submitted her option to be appointed as a Clerk and also submitted her original educational and other certificates. On 5th March, 1999 the petitioner again submitted a representation to respondent No. 2. Similarly, her father made a representation before the Home Secretary on 15th December, 1999, but inspite of all this, no appointment has been given. Hence the present writ petition.

Notice of the writ petition was given to respondents and the stand of the respondents is that the case of the petitioner was considered but was declined vide order dated 19th May, 2000 on the plea that the financial position of the petitioner was not so weak and, therefore, she could not be accommodated on compassionate ground as per the policy of the Government dated 5th February, 1996.

We have heard Shri G.C. Gupta on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Lakhwinder Bir Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance, have gone through the record of this case.

Repeatedly it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that compassionate appointments are given by the State Government/Corporate bodies to those who are tight over the financial situation of the family in which the earning member had expired. It is also stated by the counsel for the petitioner that from the rental income of the property, she is getting monthly income of Rs. 2200/-. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is maintaining three children, besides herself, her father-in-law and the rental amount of Rs. 2200/- is so meagre to support the family. It is difficult to run even the household affairs,

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is getting family pension at the rate of Rs, 3940/- per month. The petitioner has received Rs, 66,482/- on account of leave encashment; Rs, 30,000/- on account of GIS, Ex-Gra-tia grant Rs. 50,000/-; GPF Rs. 80,079/- and GPF Insurance Rs. 10,000/- and, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the financial position of the petitioner is so miserable that she is not in a position to maintain herself and her family members,

We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and are of the opinion that this writ petition is not likely be succeed and deserves dismissal for the reasons mat it cannot be said or inferred from the pleadings that the financial position of the petitioner is so tight that she is unable to maintain herself and to support her family members.Resultantly, there is no merit in this writ petition. Dismissed with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.