Punjab & Haryana High Court refuses compassionate appointment to man whose father died during Operation Blue Star in 1984

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently rejected a man's plea for employment on compassionate grounds in view of his father's death during the 1984 Operation Bluestar [Bal Amrit Singh V/S Union of India].Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma observed that compassionate appointments are given to the dependents of the deceased government servant only to help the family come out of the immediate financial difficulties caused by the death of the government servant. .The Court opined that no such immediate financial difficulty existed for the petitioner-son, over twenty years after the death of his father in Operation Blue Star. ."The petitioner had attained the majority in the year 1998 and the further 12 years passed by when his case was rejected. As on today, more than another 12-13 years have been passed by. In these circumstances, without examining the issue whether the appointment was available to the families who died during the operation Blue Star, this Court finds that by efflux of time after almost more than 20 years, compassionate appointment cannot be offered to the petitioner," the Court concluded. .The Court was hearing a plea by one Bal Amrit Singh, who sought a compassionate appointment by way of a petition filed in 2013 on account of the death of his father during the Operation Blue Star conducted at the Golden Temple, Amritsar in 1984..The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the petitioner was a minor at that time of his father's death. The petitioner had sought to avail a compassionate appointment based on a circular issued by the government granting such appointments to the dependent family members of the persons killed due to terrorism or riots..The plea was dismissed by the High Court on December 8."Although it (compassionate appointment) is not a regular mode of appointment but the same is given to the dependent of the deceased Government servant only to come out from the immediate financial difficulties which cannot be said to be existing as on today in relation to the petitioner," the Court explained. .Advocate Naresh Jain appeared for the petitioner. Senior panel counsel Ashish Chaudhary represented the Government of India whereas Additional Advocate General Charanpreet Singh represented the Punjab government. Advocates MS Virk, and Dr. PK Sekhon appeared for other respondents. .[Read Order]