214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.02.2026 MANASA ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of the death of her father while in service, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the policy dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-1). The denial is based solely on the ground that the petitioner is a married daughter. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 10.06.2020 (Annexure P-4), whereby her claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on wholly flimsy and hyper-technical grounds, contrary to the spirit and ratio of the judgment dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure P-5) passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP-2218-2017, Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another. Further, a writ of Mandamus is prayed for, directing the respondents to consider and grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner as Safai Sewika (Sweeper) or against any other suitable Class-IV post, on account of the death of her father Sh. Ratti Ram while in service, in terms of the policy dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-1) read with the aforesaid judgment, along with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that father of the petitioner, Sh. Ratii Ram, was working on a Group-D post with respondent No.3 on regular basis since June 1980 and died in harness on 11.05.2012 after rendering 32 years of continuous service. At the time of the death, the petitioner, her mother, and one sister were the surviving legal heirs. The mother of the petitioner was not physically fit to take up employment, and the sister was already married and settled in her matrimonial home. The petitioner, being a divorcee, was wholly dependent upon her parental family. She was deserted by her in-laws in the year 2017 and has since been residing at her parental home along with her two minor children, having no independent source of income. Immediately after the death of her father, the petitioner applied to respondent No.3 seeking compassionate appointment. The mother of the petitioner, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, and her sister Manu Rani furnished affidavits expressing no objection to the petitioner being appointed on compassionate grounds. As per the policy dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-1) read with Memo dated 02.06.2004 (Annexure P-2), one dependent family member of the deceased employee is entitled to compassionate appointment. The petitioner sought appointment against a non-provincialised Class-IV post, for which respondent No.3 was competent. Despite her clear eligibility and repeated representations, no action was taken for a considerable period. Upon inquiry, the petitioner was orally informed that her case could not be considered as she was a married daughter and allegedly not covered under the policy. Left with no alternative, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 13.01.2020, whereafter the impugned order dated 10.06.2020 was passed for the first time, rejecting her claim on the ground of delay. The denial on such hyper-technical grounds defeats the very object of compassionate appointment, which is meant to alleviate the sudden financial hardship faced by the family of a deceased employee. The issue of entitlement of a married daughter stands conclusively settled by this Hon’ble Court in Amarjit Kaur (supra). Therefore, considering the financial distress of the petitioner, her minor children, and dependent mother, she is entitled to compassionate a