YUGPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure P-5) where the petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected by respondent No.2 mainly on the ground that the employee, who was the father of the petitioner, died on 13.11.1998 in an accident. It was, accordingly held that the aim of appointment on compassionate basis/priority basis was to give financial assistance to the family and not to create another source of employment. The mother of the petitioner was also in Government service, at the time of death of the employee and therefore, there is no financial hardship. Challenge is also to subsequent communication dated 16.02.2015 (Annexure P-7) on account of the above decision taken.

(2.) The facts would go to show that the petitioner's father was working on the post of B.P.Ed with Government Senior Secondary School, Kesal (Tarn Taran) and died on 13.11.1998 while in service in an accident. The petitioner was 8 years of age at that time since he is born on 01.10.1990. The mother of the petitioner was already in Government service and has retired in the year 2010. The petitioner attained the age of majority in the year of 2008 but continued pursuing his academic qualifications and has passed out his Bachelor of Education degree in July, 2014. It is not disputed that the application for compassionate appointment was moved on 14.10.2013. Now the ground taken for compassionate appointment is that the mother of the petitioner has also retired and is suffering from a disease namely Hepatitis C and her pension is paltry.

(3.) It is settled principle that the objective of appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment and is only for the aggrieved family to come out of a financial crisis. In the facts and circumstances as apparent, it is clear that the petitioner's family had sufficient income as such and the petitioner choose to pursue his academic courses rather than seeking an employment immediately at the point he turned the major. The application has been filed after almost 5 years and more than 15 years after the death of the employee. In such circumstances, there seems to be no financial crisis, which the family was facing. The judgment of the Apex Court passed in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & others, 1994 4 SCC 138 stands as a hurdle to grant any relief to the petitioner wherein it is specifically held that the object of compassionate appointment was not to create another source of employment and is only for the purpose to tide over financial crisis.