##PAGE1##

1 CWP-13478-2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

238 CWP-13478-2021 Date of Decision: 23.03.2026

Bhupinder Singh

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG Punjab-State.

Mr. D.S. Randhawa, Advocate for respondent No.4.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in view of the service rendered by late Sh. Satnam Singh, Fire Officer, deceased father of the petitioner who died in harness while working with Municipal Council, Khanna in terms of the policy/practice prevalent on the date of death of deceased employee, as the matter being squarely covered by the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Swaroop Chand Versus State of Haryana and

PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.27 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2 CWP-13478-2021

others 2015(12) SCT 600. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order/inter departmental

communication dated 07.04.2017 (Annexure P-6).

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the father of the petitioner was serving with respondent No.4-Municipal Council and retired from service on 30.04.2013 upon attaining the age of superannuation while holding the post of Fire Officer. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter he sought extension in service in terms of the applicable Government policy/instructions, which was duly granted for a period of one year, i.e., from 30.04.2013 to 30.04.2014. Subsequently, the father of the petitioner applied for a second extension for the period from 30.04.2014 to 30.04.2015, however, during the subsistence of the said extension period, he unfortunately died in harness on 04.10.2014, as is

evident from the death certificate (Annexure P-1).

2.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, being the dependent of the deceased employee, promptly applied for compassionate appointment in March, 2015. The said claim was duly considered by respondent No.4-Municipal Council, which passed Resolution dated 08.07.2016 recommending the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and forwarded the same to respondent No.2-Directorate of

Local Government for requisite approval.

2.2 Learned counsel further submits that, in the interregnum, the Government of Punjab, Department of Finance, issued instructions dated

PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.27 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3 CWP-13478-2021

27.12.2016 (Annexure P-5), whereby provision was made for grant of compassionate appointment to dependents of employees who died during the extended period of service between the age of 58 to 60 years, and the said instructions were given retrospective effect from 08.10.2012. Thus, the case of the petitioner squarely fell within the ambit of the said policy, and a vested right accrued in his favour for consideration of compassionate

appointment in accordance therewith.

2.3 However, it is contended that the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected vide impugned order/communication dated 07.04.2017 (Annexure P-6) solely on the ground that the aforesaid instructions dated 27.12.2016 had been withdrawn on 29.03.2017. Learned counsel submits that such rejection is wholly arbitrary and legally untenable, inasmuch as the right of the petitioner had already crystallized upon issuance of the instructions and consideration of his case by the competent authority. The subsequent withdrawal of the policy could not operate retrospectively so as to divest the petitioner of his accrued and enforceable right to be considered

for