- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The instant writ petition has been filed against the im pugned order dated 12. 6. 96, Annexure 9 to the petition by which the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for giving him employment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has been found non suited on the ground of delay and laches for applying for the job on compassionate ground.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner's father died on 8. 8. 1974 while he was working with the respondents. At the time of the death of his father, the petitioner was only three years of age and after attain ing majority and requisite qualification he applied for job in the year 1990. According to the rules applicable in the instant case, the claim of the petitioner was found to be very state and not worth considerting. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1976, the Apex Court had observed that the purpose of giving employ ment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship of the family due to the death of the bread earner. It is provided immediately to redeem the family in dis tress. If it is not given immediately, the very purposes for which the employment is provided for would stand frustrated. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, 1994 (4) SCC 138, the Apex Court has observed as under: "as a rule, appointments in the public ser vices should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Government nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualification laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the inter est of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into con sideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source livelihood. " It further observed as under: 'for these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. "
(3.) THE issue was further considered by the Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar (C. A. No. 10682'of 1995) decided on November 13, 1995, where in it was observed as under: "the very object of appointment of a de pendent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sud den demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year, the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long there after. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged, de hors the recruitment rules. " After considering all these judgments, the Supreme Court again in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another has held that under the Dying in Harness Rules the dependent of the deceased cannot claim the employment as a vested right and such employment cannot be given after expiry of the period provided under the statutory rules and where the rules do not provide for any limit, after the lapse of a reasonable period. In view of the above this petition is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;