119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 08.01.2026

Kapil Joshi ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present: Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate and

Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent/authorities to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment and to grant all other benefits admissible to him and further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned reply dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) to the legal notice letter

dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-5).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner’s father who was serving as a Clerk died on 25.09.1985 as discernible from Annexure P-1. At the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was only two months old. The petitioner’s mother received the death-cum- retiral dues in the year 1986 and being unaware of the policy governing compassionate appointment, did not submit any application. Upon attaining majority, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the year

2011. The representation was forwarded on 05.05.2011 (Annexure P-2) and a representation filed by the mother of the petitioner on 26.05.2012 (Annexure P- 3) was not considered. The petitioner’s case is covered under the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-4). A legal notice was served on 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) which was replied to by respondent No.5 and it was conveyed that the petitioner’s claim cannot be accepted. He further submits that the refusal to consider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment is arbitrary, unjust and violates the humanitarian objective of the policy.

3. Per contra, the learned State counsel for respondent No.1 submits that admittedly, the father of the petitioner was died on 25.09.1985 and at that time, the petitioner was two months’ old. There was no policy at the time of the death of his father providing compassionate appointment. The Compassionate Appointment Policy was issued in the year 2002. The petitioner at the time of filing of application was 39 years of age and the maximum age of appointment is 38 years. Further, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The claim raised by the petitioner suffers from delay and laches.

4. It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, the facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented him from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225, wherein, the following was held:

“16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence- sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implici