GURDEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length. The petitioner seeks the quashing of orders dated 3.12.2003 and 25.3.2004 (Annexure P -14 and P -15), rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

(2.) HUSBAND of the petitioner joined the service of the State of Haryana on 28.12.1977 as learner Binder. On 9.4.1984, he was promoted as Binder. On the basis of the report given by the medical board constituted on the directions of the Controller, Printing and Stationery Department, he was declared unfit for further service. Vide order dated 6.10.2003, he was retired from Government service w.e.f. 28.04.2003, under Rule 8.18 of the Punjab CSR Vol.1 Part -1 read with Rule 5.11 of Punjab CSR Vol.2. The employee passed away on 28.6.2004. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an application for the grant of appointment on compassionate ground to one of her children. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that rejection of the claim of the widow is contrary to the Haryana Government instructions dated 2.12.1975, 23.11.1992 and 1.12.1994.

(3.) THE aforesaid observations made it abundantly clear that High Court would not be justified in directing the appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of course. The Supreme Court has clearly laid down in Umesh Nagpal's case that the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. It has also been held that the provision for employment even on the lowest post can only be justified in the form of relief against destitution. It must also be framed that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right. The object of offering employment on compassionate ground is only to enable the family to get over the financial crises which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread -winner. In view of the clear enunciation of the law by the Supreme Court, it would not be possible to hold that the petitioner has been denied the appointment arbitrarily or unreasonably. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Nagpal (supra) has been reiterated in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and Anr., (1996) 8 S.C.C. page 23.