JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of decision dated 18.07.2012 (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.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that petitioner’s husband passed away in 2003. She is working with respondent through outsource agency. As per the policy of 2003, maximum 5% seats could be filled up through compassionate appointment. There was three years cap in the policy. Name of petitioner was duly included in the list of eligible candidates. During 2003 to 2005, 150 seats fell vacant and 8 seats were filled up through compassionate appointment. No post became vacant during 2006 and petitioner’s name was deleted from the list in 2007. All the selected candidates were senior to petitioner. There was no discrimination with the petitioner. The respondent could not make appointment beyond 5% quota.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. Object of compassionate appointment or ex-gratia payment is to protect the family of deceased employee from being driven to destitution, penury and starvation. The object of appointment on compassionate ground is not to give a member of the deceased employee's family a post, much less a post for a post held by the deceased but to provide relief to the family of a deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis erupted by his/her premature death. This relief provides the distressed family immediate succor and financial assistance to recover from the unexpected deprivation of the income of the sole breadwinner of the family. It is not one of the sources of engagement of employees.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana; (1994) 4 SCC 138, has held that appointment on compassionate ground is a concession and cannot be claimed as a matter of right especially after passage of substantial time. The relevant extracts of the said judgment read as:-

"2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services 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 Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications