105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision:06.03.2026 NEELAM ....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit, Advocate Mr. Pranab Bansal, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl., AG, Haryana.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) CM-454-LPA-2026 (delay in filing appeal)

1. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC has been filed on behalf of the applicant-appellant seeking condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 10 days in filing the instant appeal stands condoned.

CM-453-LPA-2026 (delay in re-filing appeal)

3. This application under Section 151 CPC has been filed on behalf of the applicant-appellant seeking condonation of delay of 124 days in re-filing the present appeal.

4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 124 days in re-filing the instant appeal stands condoned.

Main Case (O&M)

5. This appeal seeks to assail the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.05.2025 passed in CWP No. 5924 of 2023.

6. It transpires that the appellant lost her husband, who was in government employment, while in service in the year 2001. An application for compassionate appointment was filed soon after the death, which ultimately came to be rejected on 29.08.2005. This order of 2005 was challenged in a writ petition filed before this Court in the year 2013. During the pendency of the writ petition, time was granted to the State to obtain appropriate instructions, whereafter a compassionate appointment was offered to the appellant. Such appointment was accepted and, consequently, the writ petition filed by the appellant, being CWP No.

3662 of 2013, came to be dismissed as having become infructuous.

7. The learned Single Judge, however, proceeded to observe that the dismissal of the writ petition would not prejudice or affect any other service benefits that might be available to her in accordance with law or as a result of the delayed appointment. Thereafter, a legal notice was served in which recommendations allegedly were made in favour of the appellant for the grant of the benefit of compassionate appointment with effect from 2001. For enforcement of such recommendations, the writ petition came to be filed before the learned Single Judge.

8. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition by extending the benefit of employment by a period of 38 months prior to the institution of CWP No.3662 of 2013 notionally, and actually with effect from the date of her appointment. The reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge to grant such relief is reproduced hereunder:-

“………...The undisputed facts which emerge from the above are that the petitioner was even though entitled to compassionate appointment consequent upon the death of her husband in April 2001, however, the said appointment was initially delayed and later denied to her and an order was passed in this regard on 29.08.2005.

It also remains undisputed that the petitioner had filed CWP No.3662 of 2013 before this Court seeking setting aside of order dated 29.08.2005 declining her claim for compassionate appointment. It was during the pendency of the said petition that the respondents issued the letter of appointment on 21.06.2018 in favor of the petitioner. When the CWP No.3662 of 2013 was finally disposed of on 14.8.2018, the petitioner was granted the liberty to take recourse to the remedy(ies) available to her for seeking other service benefits, that may have accrued in her favour, as a result of delayed appointment. It was only thereafter that a representation was submitted by the petitioner by way of a legal notice to which the comments/opinion was forwarded by the Chief Conservator, Forest