Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - (1.) WHETHER compassionate appointment as regards the son of the petitioner is warranted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, is the question involved in the present writ petition. Briefly stated, the husband of the petitioner was working as a line -man with the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board in the Office of Executive Engineer, City Division, Karnal. He died in harness on 26.4.1974 and was survived by a widow i.e. the petitioner, six daughters and a minor son, namely, Raghbir Singh. The date of birth of Raghbir Singh, as mentioned in the writ petition, is 9.5.1971. From the pleadings on record, the petitioner moved an application seeking compassionate appointment upon her son having attained the age of majority in the year 1991. It was upon the respondents having not responded favourably that the instant writ petition was filed in the year 1993.
(2.) THE respondents have filed a written statement taking a stand that the son of the petitioner became eligible for consideration as regards compassionate appointment in the year 1989 but the petitioner submitted the requisite application only on 2.8.1991. As such, a plea has been set up that the claim of the petitioner to have sought compassionate appointment for her son was not covered in terms of the Government policy dated 3.11.1988 appended as Annexure R1 along with the written statement. On account of the considerable efflux of time, I do not think it would be necessary to go into the merits of the respective claims set up between the parties. It is well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The object of making such a benevolent scheme by the State or a Public Sector Undertaking is to ensure that the dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood and that the family of the deceased tides over the sudden financial crisis.
(3.) THE admitted facts are that the husband of the petitioner died in 1974 i.e. almost 37 years back. Her son in respect of whom compassionate appointment was sought would also be 40 years of age approximately at present. Such an issue regarding compassionate appointment after considerable time having elapsed from the date of death of the bread earner came to be considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., : 2008 (3) R.A.J. 263 : 2008 (2) SCT 669 and it was observed as under: 16. Furthermore, about 12 years have passed. Appellant's son is aged about 20 years and daughter is aged about 16 years. Therefore, they have become major. Appellant herself would be aged about 38 years now. She cannot be given any appointment at this age. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed.;