Prem Kumar vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The father of the petitioner who was working on the post of Sweeper in Punjab Roadways, State of Punjab died in harness on 25.06.1999. The present writ petition has been filed by Sh. Prem Kumar-petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on the basis of the death of his father while in service. Such claim has been rejected in terms of the impugned order dated 24.02.2010 (Annexure P-1). A perusal of the rejection order (Annexure P-1) would itself reveal that upon the death of the father of the petitioner, an application seeking compassionate appointment had been moved by the brother of the present petitioner. Such application was not considered on the ground that the brother of the present petitioner was not eligible to claim compassionate appointment, being illiterate. The present petitioner submitted his application seeking compassionate appointment first in point of time on 22.09.2009 and the same has been dismissed on the ground of delay and not being covered in terms of Government instructions issued on the subject. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue that the order of rejection dated 24.02.2010 (Annexure P-1) can not be sustained on the ground that the action of the State is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the claim of his brother seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment was kept pending for a considerable length of time. Finally, after the claim of his brother was rejected, it is only thereupon that the present petitioner filed his application and as such, such claim could not have been rejected only on the ground that the application has been moved after a period of 10 years from the date of death of his father.

Learned counsel further places reliance on the amended policy on the subject of compassionate appointment issued by the State of Punjab dated 03.07.2008 (Annexure P-4). Counsel would contend that in terms of such amended policy, it was obligatory for the respondent/authorities to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment even to the old deserving cases in which application seeking compassionate appointment is made within six months from the date of issue of such instructions if not already made.

I am unable to accept the submissions raised by the learned counsel.

Compassionate appointment is a concession and is not a vested right with a dependent of a deceased employee. The sole objective of such appointment is to mitigate the sudden financial circumstances that have been fallen upon the family who loses the sole bread earner while in harness. Compassionate appointment is not a normal mode of recruitment but is an exception to the scheme of a regular recruitment process as envisaged under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is not a matter of dispute that the father of the petitioner had died in the year 1999. By its very nature, a compassionate appointment if at all is to be granted to the petitioner in close proximity to the date of death of the government employee. The death of the father of the petitioner occurred in the year 1999 and the present writ petition claiming compassionate appointment has been preferred in the year 2012. The claim as raised in the present writ petition can not be accepted.

No merit. Dismissed.