S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length. The petitioner seeks the quashing of orders dated 3.12.2003 and 25.3.2004 (Annexure P-14 and P-15), rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. Husband of the petitioner joined the service of the State of Haryana on 28.12.1977 as learner Binder. On 9.4.1984, he was promoted as Binder. On the basis of the report given by the medical board constituted on the directions of the Controller, Printing and Stationery Department, he was declared unfit for further service. Vide order dated 6.10.2003, he was retired from Government service w.e.f. 28.04.2003, under Rule 8.18 of the Punjab CSR Vol.1 Part-1 read with Rule 5.11 of Punjab CSR Vol.2. The employee passed away on 28.6.2004. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an application for the grant of appointment on compassionate ground to one of her children. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that rejection of the claim of the widow is contrary to the Haryana Government instructions dated 2.12.1975, 23.11.1992 and 1.12.1994.
3. We are unable to accept the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. The State of Haryana has framed Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter refer to as 2003 Rules). Under these Rules, appointment is to be given on compassionate ground only in case to the child of the deceased employee, where the family is in extreme financial distress due to the loss of the deceased, namely, the Government employees who dies in 'harness'. There is no provision under these Rules for appointment on compassionate grounds to one of the dependents of the Government employee who have retired on the ground of medical unfitness. Counsel for the petitioner, however, relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ashu Malik v. State of Haryana in support of the claim that the son of the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. However, we are of the opinion that the facts of the aforesaid case are different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench w as considering the claim made by the children of an employee, who was crushed to death by a bus in the Haryana Roadways Workshop. Due to injuries suffered in the accident, the employee had sought voluntary retirement. While seeking voluntary retirement, the employee (petitioner No. 2) had been assured that his elder son on attaining the age of maturity and becoming eligible would be given employment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner had claimed employment on the basis of circular letter dated 8.5.95 and 31.8.95. In the present case also, the petitioner bases the claim on the basis of aforesaid instructions. In such circumstances, the Division Bench held that the petitioner could not be denied appointment as there be no distinction between a person who was retired having been declared medically unfit/incapacitated by the medical board and a person who sought voluntary retirement on his medical unfitness/incapacitation. The aforesaid judgment was rendered prior to the promulgation of the 2003 Rules. Under the aforesaid Rule, there is no provision for granting appointment on compassionate ground to the son/daughter of an employee who has been retired on medical grounds. Learned counsel had also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India, J.T. 1989(3) S.C. 570. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a claim made by a person who was entitled to claim appointment as Lower Division Clerk in November, 1982. She had passed the necessary trade test. She was, however, not offered the appointment as by Notification dated 25.1.1985. The appointment of ladies in the concerned Department was prohibited. It appears that the appointment had been denied to the candidate on the ground of gender. It was stated by the respondents that other departments had been approached to get employment for the lady, but no Department had offered the appointment. It was also stated that she nominated a male member of her family, who could be considered for appointment. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factors the Supreme Court observed that there was absolutely no reason to make her wait till 1985, when the ban on appointment is particularly arbitrary and cannot be supported by any view of the matter. These observations are again of no assistance to the petitioner as in the aforesaid case the candidate was clearly entitled to be appointed under the policy of the Union of India. We are of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner has to be rejected in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 S.C.C. 138. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court considered the earlier judgment in the case of Sushma Gosain (supra) and observed as follows:-
It is for these reasons that we have not been in a position to appreciate judgments of some of the High Courts which have justified and even directed compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV. We are also dismayed to find that the decision of this Court in Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1989)4 S.L.R. 387) has been misinterpreted to the point of distortion. The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in employment in posts above Classes III and IV.
4. The aforesaid observations made it abundantly clear that High Court would not be justified in directing the appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of course. The Supreme Court has clearly laid down in Umesh Nagpal's case that the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. It has also been held that the provision for employment even on the lowest post can only be justified in the form of relief against destitution. It must also be framed that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right. The object of offering employment on compassionate ground is only to enable the family to get over the financial crises which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread-winner. In view of the clear enunciation of the law by the Supreme Court, it would not be possible to hold that the petitioner has been denied the appointment arbitrarily or unreasonably. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Nagpal (supra) has been reiterated in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and Anr., (1996) 8 S.C.C. page 23. It has been reiterated that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, intended to make the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. As noticed earlier, the husband of the petitioner had been declared medically unfit. He had been retired from service in accordance with the Statutory Service Rules. He had been granted all the retiral benefits, presumably under the Rules. Petitioner would not be entitled to any appointment on compassionate ground under the Rule 2003 Rules, which have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, clearly.
5. Therefore, no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. We find not merit in the petition.