IMPORTANT POINT
The object of compassionate appointment is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In both these matters, the question of

compassionate employment of the heir of the deceased employee of the Haryana State Electricity Board is required to be considered. In the first matter concerning SLP (C) No. 7878/93 the ex-employee of the Haryana State Electricity Board died on 18.11.80. The widow of the deceased-employee made an application inter alia indicating therein that she had not married and she had three minor children, the eldest of them having been born in 1972. As per the existing Circular for giving relief to the distressed member of the family of the deceased-employee, ex-gratia payment was given to the widow of the family. It is only in 1992, the representation was made by the respondent- the mother of the Naresh Tanwar, the son of the deceased-employee that since the son had attained majority by that time, he should be given appointment on compassionate ground. Such representation was, however, rejected and, therefore, a writ petition was moved before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and by the impugned judgment, the High Court has directed that such compassionate appointment should be given to the respondent-Naresh Tanwar. In this appeal, the said judgment is impugned.

3. In the appeal relating to SLP(C) No. 13708/95, an ex-employee of Haryana State Electricity Board died on 16.3.75 and a representation was made by the widow of the deceased-employee in October, 1988 for appointment of the son of the widow of the employee by contending that by that time, the minor son had attained majority and, therefore, eligible to be given appointment. Such representation was rejected by the State Electricity Board but the writ petition filed by the respondent Sonana Devi the widow of the said ex-employee has been allowed by the impugned judgment by directing the State Electricity Board to give appointment to the son of the said respondent Sonana Devi being the heir of the deceased-employee, on compassionate ground.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State Electricity Board in these matters have drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors.1 In the said case, a scheme was made for appointment to a Class II post by the heirs of the ex-employee on the ground of compassionate appointment. This court has not only held in the said decision that no scheme for appointment to Class-II or Class I shall be made by way of appointment on the score of compassionate appointment, out it has been further indicated in the said decision that :

"As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other made of appointment not any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Government nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications 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 interests 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 denury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration 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.    (Emphasis added)

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 sour