VIKRAM KUMAR MANCHANDA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner's father died shortly before his superannuation from the District Courts at Sangrur. The petitioner is 1980 born. That makes him about 39 years today and about 33 at the time of presentation of the petition. His request for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the High Court by an order which is impugned as non-speaking, illegal and arbitrary. The order actually is a non-speaking one and therefore this Court called for the original record. The record reveals that the petitioner and his family have a residential house in a plot measuring 70 sq. yds. in District Sangrur. The petitioner had received the retirement benefits of the deceased father. The details have been given in a tabular form by Mr. Chatrath appearing for the High Court which included Rs. 10 lacs in death-cum-retirement gratuity and Rs. 3,77,300/- in leave encashment dues. The same is retained on record as Mark 'A'. The family pension worked out at the relevant time was Rs. 7,164/- per month which stands revised from time to time.

(3.) The petitioner has not asserted that the family left behind was in dire financial stress or in a state of poverty at the time of death of the father. There is also no averment in the petition regarding the monetary status of the family throughout this period or how they have managed to survive. Compassionate appointment is ante-thesis to equal opportunity in Article 16 of the Constitution as it is an exception and not the rule. Each case it is trite to say has to be considered and decided on its own facts. The petitioner has not made any effort to look for employment elsewhere. In any rate, this Court is not prepared to help pass on the baton of employment to the son for the next two decades when the father died at the fag end of his career short of retirement by only a few months. He was normally expected to have made his family's post-retirement arrangements by then.