DALJIT KAUR Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of decision dtd. 18/7/2012 (Annexure P-7) whereby respondent rejected her claim for compassionate appointment.

(2.) The petitioner's husband passed away on 31/10/2003. He was working with Municipal Corporation Chandigarh as Gardener (Mali). The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in December' 2003. The respondent included her name in the list of applicants eligible for compassionate appointment. She was considered as per seniority in the list, however, could not be selected because of insufficient number of posts. The respondent by impugned decision deleted her name from the list on the expiry of three years because it was policy of the respondent to retain name of applicants in the list for three years. There were many applicants senior to Petitioner in the list who were also deleted on account of non-availability of posts. The respondent has made 5% quota under direct recruitment for compassionate appointments. As per reply, petitioner is working with respondent through outsource agency.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's husband passed on 31/10/2003. She filed application seeking appointment on 13/12/2003. The respondent included her name in the list of eligible candidates. The respondent considered dependents of other employees despite expiry of three or five years period from the date of death of employee. The petitioner's name was deleted from the list of eligible candidates on 27/12/2007, however, she was informed in 2012. The petitioner deserves to be considered on compassionate ground.