Compassionate appointments must be made promptly following a breadwinner's death; delayed applications undermine their purpose.

JUDGMENT :

Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, seeking quashing of the order dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure P-8). Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in place of his father, who died in harness.

2. The brief facts as have been pleaded in the petition are that the father of the petitioner namely Sh. Mukhtiar Singh joined the respondent - PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'PRTC') as Conductor on 01.06.1979 and unfortunately, he died on 18.07.2001, while he was in service. The petitioner was a minor at that point of time as his date of birth is 25.03.1991 and he was only 10 years old at that time. He attained the age of majority of 18 years and applied for compassionate appointment by submitting application dated 21.11.2009 (Annexure P-2). The mother of the petitioner also submitted her affidavit to the effect that she has no objection if the petitioner is given appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner again submitted representation on 04.05.2010, seeking compassionate appointment and since no action was taken on the said representations, therefore, the petitioner sought information vide application dated 26.02.2018, under the RTI Act, 2005 and on the said application, reply dated 27.02.2018, was given by the respondents that his Voter Card and date of birth certificate be provided within ten days, which were provided by the petitioner on 27.02.2018 itself. Again the petitioner submitted application, under the RTI Act, seeking information about the outcome of his claim for job on compassionate ground, to which reply dated 16.05.2018 was given by the respondent - PRTC stating therein that his application dated 04.05.2010 seeking compassionate appointment has been considered and filed by the Additional Managing Director and that the certificates/documents appended with the applications submitted by the petitioner in the year 2009-10 were not got attested nor he had produced the original certificates. Finally, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure P-8) by stating that the petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground after 09 years of death of his father and as per the instructions of the Punjab Government in the policy dated 21.11.2002, he could have applied for compassionate appointment within one year from the date of death of his father and, therefore, the same has been filed. Aggrieved against the said order, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Short reply by way of affidavit of Ketan Kumar Chouhan, Legal Advisor, PEPSU, has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated as under:-

"5 That with regard to the claim of the petitioner, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana , reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138 held that the scheme for compassionate appointment has been formulated to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis. It is a settled proposition of law that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitled his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the Public Authority concerned has a right to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision o