SIMAR KAUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband of the petitioner while working as a Clerk in the respondent-Guru Nanak Dev University, died in a road accident in the year 1985. The petitioner on account of the demise of her husband was appointed as a Clerk on 20.7.1985 on compassionate ground although she did not fulfil the requisite qualifications. However, keeping in view her plight, she was given the post of a Clerk. In terms of her appointment letter dated 20.7.1985 (Annexure P-1), her appointment was provisional and temporary for a period of two years from the date of her joining. She was required to fulfil within the said period of two years certain conditions/requirements i.e.; (i) graduation or B.A. Part-I/Intermediate in second division and (ii) qualify type test in English/Punjabi with the speed of at least 40 w.p.m. The petitioner could not qualify the initial standards of qualifications even in a period of 20 years. Thereafter, the Syndicate in its meeting held on 26.2.2002 passed orders for regularizing the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 26.2.2002 by relaxing the conditions imposed at the time of appointment of the petitioner. The said decision of the Syndicate was conveyed to the petitioner by the respondent- University on 22.3.2002 (Annexure P-4). Therefore, not only the conditions imposed at the time of appointment of the petitioner were relaxed but she was ordered to be regularized on the job. Now, she has filed the present writ petition claiming that her services should be regularized from the date she was appointed.

(2.) We are of the considered opinion that claim of the petitioner is wholly without any merit. The employer by offering her appointment on compassionate grounds has already complied with the policy decision and more. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994 4 SCC 138, it has been clearly held by the Supreme Court that the object of appointment on compassionate ground is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crises and not to provide employment. The object, it was held, was not to give a member of the deceased family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. Besides, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. 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 crises that a job is offered to the eligible member of the family. The respondent-University having given appointment to the petitioner as a Clerk on the demise of her husband, has done more than what was required. It has appointed the petitioner, even though she did not fulfil the required conditions. In case the petitioner did not fulfil the qualifications for being appointed on the post of Clerk, the University would have been fully justified to offer a class IV appointment. The petitioner has forgotten all compassion and sympathy extended to her by her employer. She wants further advantage to be given to her in the form of the benefit of service rendered by her on a post for which she did not fulfil the required qualifications. The respondent-University has even done away with the conditions imposed on the petitioner at the time of her appointment by relaxing the same. Besides, it has also ordered for the grant of increments after one year. In the circumstances, the petitioner could not ask for anything more than what has already been given to her. Even otherwise the petitioner has failed to show any legally enforceable statutory right which would entitle her to have her services regularized from the date of her initial appointment. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that to grant relief to the petitioner at this stage would be wholly unjustified.