IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 16.01.2026 Lal Chand ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present:- Mr. Hoshiar Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab, for the respondents.

***

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

CM-127-LPA-2026

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 75 days in preferring the appeal.

2. Issue notice in the application to the non-applicants/respondents.

3. At the asking of the Court, Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and pleads no objection.

4. Heard.

5. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 75 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

CM-128-LPA-2026

1. This application is for placing on record Annexure A-1 dated

18.07.2022.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures A-1 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Single Bench whereby the writ petition preferred by him seeking directions to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the death of his father in harness, the brother of the appellant had applied for compassionate appointment, but his claim was rejected, as he did not have the requisite qualification of having passed Class V. Thereafter, the petitioner, who was qualified, had applied for compassionate appointment and it ought to have been allowed.

3. Heard.

4. The father of the appellant, who was working as Beldar with the Electrical Division, Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, expired on 14.03.2005. The brother of the appellant had applied for compassionate appointment, but as he had only studied upto Class III, his claim was rejected on 05.07.2012. The appellant, thereafter, applied for compassionate appointment, but his claim was rejected on 21.12.2018 on the ground that in accordance with instructions dated

21.11.2002, the application was belated.

5. We are in agreement with the judgment of the Single Bench that the claim of the appellant had been rightly rejected on account of delay, as the application seeking compassionate appointment had been preferred by the appellant 07 years after the death of his father. It is trite that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is an exception to the general rule that appointments to public service are to be made strictly on the basis of merit, after inviting applications from all eligible candidates. The object of compassionate appointment is only to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crises faced by them due to the death of the breadwinner. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of I.G. (Karmik) Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi 2007 (6) SCC 162. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“7. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.”

6. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bangal versus Debabrata Tiwari and others, (2025) 5 SCC 712, has held that in a case where the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is belated, for reasons of prolonged delay, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost.

Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereun