HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ****

Charlie ... Petitioner VS.

Punjab National Bank & Ors. ... Respondents

1. Judgment reserved on 16.01.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 06.03.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 07.03.2026

4. Whether operative or full judgment Full 5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment NA and reasons, if any CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Shabad Ahmad, Advocate and Mr. Pankaj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Preeti Grover, Advocate for Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate for the respondents ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him on compassionate ground on account of death of his father Ashok Kumar on 07.08.2018, in terms of Human Resources Management Division Circular No.495/2020 dated 26.03.2020 (Annexure P4) issued by the Bank itself.

(2). The father of the petitioner, namely, Shri Ashok Kumar was appointed as Peon in the respondent-Bank on 22.05.1985. He was later on promoted as Head Cashier, however, on his request on account of having suffered from cancer and paralyses attack, he was demoted to Single Window Operator. He unfortunately passed away on 07.08.2018 while in service leaving behind his wife and three sons who were dependent on his salary and live under one roof as a joint family. The petitioner applied for retiral benefits/DECRG but the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 14.01.2021 (Annexure P3) on the ground that the proposal for his compassionate appointment has not been acceded to by the competent authority as per the relevant policy guidelines.

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the life of petitioner’s father, he had availed housing loan of Rs.820000/- and OD limit of Rs.10,00,000/- and EMI on account of the aforesaid loan/advance were regularly debited from his salary but due to untimely and sudden demise of his father, the family pension of the deceased has been fixed at Rs.20,000/- per month whereas the EMI against the above said loan has been fixed at Rs.22,000/- and as such, family members are facing acute financial crunch and they have not been receiving even a single penny on account of family pension.

(4). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has filed written statement dated 09.08.2022 wherein it is averred that as per the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India and details from Indian Bank Association, a Scheme for compassionate appointment to a dependent family member of a deceased employee/retired employee on medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years, was considered and approved by the Board in its meeting dated 19.09.2014 covering all cases where such death had occurred on or after 05.08.2014 by replacing the existing ex gratia scheme.

(5). Learned counsel for the respondent then submits that a Committee of Senior Officers had considered the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, wherein it was found that the deceased employee had left behind his wife and 3 sons whereas the petitioner is married having two children and the family is in receipt of terminal dues amounting to Rs.14,58,437/- and regular family pension of Rs.35,829/- besides that Rs.2,00,000/- rebate in housing loan, being the maximum amount, was also given to the family of the petitioner. He submits that the family income of the deceased employee from all sources (i.e. 43,400/-) is more than 60% of the last drawn salary (net of Rs.55,504) of the deceased employee and as such, the bank had rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

(6). Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(7). The petitioner’s father died while in service on 07.08.2018 after having served the respondents for 33 years of unblemished service. The petitioner submitted an app