IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 03.02.2026 Surinder Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. Sushane Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order No.26073 dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure P-3), whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground as per order No.602530 dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner was called for physical evaluation test for the post of Sepoy.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner namely, Kashmir Singh, who was working in the Punjab Armed Police as a Constable, unfortunately met with an accident and died on 15.06.2010 while posted at Jalandhar. The petitioner approached the respondents for appointment on compassionate grounds to any available post. However, the respondents informed the petitioner that he could not be offered appointment as he did not fulfill the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for the post. Thereafter, the petitioner completed his matriculation in the year 2015 and 10+2 in the year 2017 and as soon as the petitioner met the requisite educational qualification, he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. He further submits that in the year 2021, the petitioner received a letter dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P-2) from the respondents, whereby he was called at Jalandhar on 15.03.2021 for physical evaluation to be appointed as Sepoy on compassionate grounds, however, when the petitioner reached Jalandhar on 15.03.2021, he was informed that all the officials are busy and conducting the test would not be possible and he would be informed about the new date and time for the test by way of letter. He further submits that the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has wrongly been rejected by the respondents, vide letter dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure P-3). He further submits that the petitioner has no stable source of income and has been living hand to mouth by working as a daily wage labour.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner unfortunately died on 15.06.2010 and since the petitioner did not possess the required minimum educational qualification, he could not have been appointed on compassionate ground at that time. It is the case of the petitioner that he completed his 10+2 in the year 2017 and approached the respondents. In the year 2021, the petitioner received a letter dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P-2) from the respondents, whereby he was called at Jalandhar on 15.03.2021 for physical evaluation for appointment to the post of Sepoy on compassionate grounds. However, on the said date, the physical evaluation test was not conducted. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure P-

3), whereby his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

5. The very object of the scheme of compassionate appointment presupposes that the request must be made within the time stipulated, or at the very least, within the reasonable period. In the present case, a period of more than 15 years has passed from the date of death of father of the petitioner i.e. 15.06.2010 and even a period of more than 04 years has passed from the date when the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents i.e. 29.11.2021 and as per settled law, appointment on compassionate basis cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Such belated claims defeat the purpose of compassionate appointment and cannot be entertained. The Hon’bl